commie

@commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com

i am more than willing to engage on any positive claim you want to make (i probably agree with a lot of them). what i’m not willing to do is tolerate personal attacks and dogpiling.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

commie, (edited )

you’re saying it’s not arbitrary. “no, you” is still a form of tu quoque. you haven’t actually made a case that sentience isnt an arbitrary standard, and there isn’t a case to be made: sentience isn’t a natural phenomenon outside of human subjective classification. without people, there would be no concept of green or warm or sentient, and any of those attributes is an arbitrary standard to use to judge the ethics of a diet.

commie,

but to go back to utilitarianism, I think there’s a strong argument that most ethical frameworks can be defined in terms of a sufficiently creative definition of utility.

this is a good reason to doubt the validity of the theory: it is constructed in a way that it is not disprovable.

commie,

I don’t really feel like getting into the weeds of that discussion though, and I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to the conversation anyways

it is. your ethical position is highly relevant to any ethical argument you present.

commie,

to give an example of a rights based one

I have to admit, I skipped the rest of this sentence on I don’t foresee myself attempting to read it: I don’t believe in rights as an objective phenomenon, either.

commie,

Our food system hasn’t even gotten to the point of ensuring nobody goes hungry, we should be using our cropland to feed humans not other animals

do you have a plan to accomplish that? until such a plan is implemented, there is not even a question whether it’s moral to eat meat, seafood, dairy, or eggs: most people have no volition in the matter and no one can actually change that.

commie,

we should end the biggest problems first, and start with ending factory farms

it’s not clear either that this is “the biggest problem” or, if it is, that the best method of solving our ecological woes is to attack it first.

commie,

we should also remember that culture is not a good reason to hurt others

I suspect we disagree about the relevant definition of “others”

commie,

not everyone is in this Lemmy thread.

commie,

why sentience and not DNA? or literally any other characteristic? your standard is absolutely arbitrary.

commie,

I’m not presenting an argument. I’m questioning yours.

commie,

I don’t think dog fighting is a moral issue: at worst, it’s aesthetic.

commie,

yea. that, too, is an aesthetic issue. it can be gross without being immoral.

commie,

the same can be said of DNA. this is a completely arbitrary standard, and you would be better served to embrace that than pretending it’s somehow objective.

commie,

you think gross things are immoral?

commie,

I’m not saying it is objective, I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.

this can’t be true. it’s self-contradictory.

commie,

I mean there is no objective reason to set the standard at sentience any more than any other standard.

commie,

all subjective opinions, like ethics or aesthetics, are.

commie,

right…

commie,

we are going to, once again, disagree on the relevant definition of “anyone”.

commie, (edited )

yes, I do: sentience is too broad a category, and not actually relevant to most people. if we are talking about people, then all of your statements are fine. but I don’t agree that these axioms are or should be applicable to, say, mosquitos . or mice. or dogs or cats. or fish. or livestock.

commie,

it’s too broad because it includes mosquitoes and mice and dogs and cats and fish and livestock. most people don’t treat them the same way. most ethical systems don’t treat them the same way. My ethical system doesn’t treat them the same way. so I do not agree that it’s okay to write an axiom about how you’re supposed to treat sentient beings. treating people better than animals is a good thing.

commie,

calling me names doesn’t make what I said untrue

commie,

it’s also an argument for veganism

no, it’s not

commie,

name the trait is a fallacious line of argument because it falls prey to the linedrawing fallacy.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #