Everything In Moderation

Let us examine:

Everything in moderation. Especially moderation.

You see. It’s a little bit funny till you start to think about it. And you start to realize that language and words ARE LIMITED.

And yet, it seems that language is our vehicle to truth and objectivity.

Moderation in moderation means that sometimes you have to go to extremes. Consider life without stretching to an extreme. Drunkenness, sex, action movies, eating out: all, very extreme.

But then our adage is rendered untrue. Because moderation is contained within the everything that is supposed to be in moderation.

What is a homo sapien to do? Where can a guy or gal go to find a little truth and objectivity?

You don’t do anything. Sans abandon old saws like everything in moderation, which as it turns out, isn’t sharp enough to cut bread.

Nope you just sit back and enjoy the cool sounds and harmonic stylings of that old fan favorite – relativism.

It has everything you need to get by in a crazy world. And if you think it doesn’t, that’s cool daddy-O, just pop open a history book of your choosing and savor the relativism deliciousness and rest easy knowing that absolutism is a thing of the past. Just like sacrifices and cat torturing. Hell we used to know that a bumblebee couldn’t fly!

Relativism – the truth! As far as it goes anyway. Which, isn’t very far but still.

Nice To Meat You

Is eating meat objectively wrong? To answer this we have to know what objectively means. Let’s start by pointing out that objective is understood as the opposite of subjective. Subjective basically means one person’s point of view.

So when we ask is it wrong to eat meat we can’t just go ask a dude or a gal because then our answer would only be subjective. Consider that said dude and gal may have different answers.

Things are getting tricky.

So how on earth can we know if something is objectively wrong or right if we can’t ask anybody? How can we know anything if we can’t ask anybody?

Don’t panic.

There are some, oh let us call them, for the moment, factoids that we consider to be true without asking anybody.

Like 2+2=4.

We don’t need Dude or Gal’s input here or anyone’s input. We don’t even need anyone to exist. If the dinosaurs hadn’t gone extinct and they’d opened up coffee shops and we kooky humans never existed, 2+2=4 would still be true. Right?

For now, yes.

But let us consider this “never existed” bit, because this is actually a good way to think about objectivity. Whenever asking if anything is objectively true or right or moral we can ask, even if people didn’t exist _____ .

Let’s try it:

Even if people didn’t exist, eating meat would be wrong.

*Cogitates*

So lions are morally in the wrong when they eat meat?

The Venus Flytrap?

Hmmm.

Maybe we need to instead ask is it objectively wrong for people to eat meat.

People may or may not be the worst but some do eat wurst, so we do need to know whether or not it is objectively wrong for them to do so.

How can we get “people eating meat is wrong” to seem like 2+2=4?

All the while minding our even if humans didn’t exist rule, ok fine, guideline.

Wait,

How can we talk about people eating meat while thinking about them not existing?

People are meat so we always, necessarily, have both at the same time. One can't be construed without the other.

This is getting weird.

It's getting meta...

wait for it...

OMG meta is an anagram of meat!

 Do you know what this means?!?!?