• oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That seems to bother you. Let’s taboo the word. When I say “someone”, “anyone”, “person”, etc, I’m referring to a sentient being, a subject of experience, an experiencer, one who is experiencing. Now you can interpret what I’m saying better, do you disagree with the actual points I’m making?

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            are your ethical views based on what most people have done historically? Or how most ethical systems view something? What is your ethical system?

            what is/are the difference(s) between human and non-human animals that justifies treating humans better than non-humans?