• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    That ‘human’ is a distinct category of being that makes us the only thing worthy of moral consideration;

    close. human is a distinct category of being. we are the only beings to whom moral consideration is due. this may be a vestigial belief: i’m not sure i buy into deontology anymore. currently, i think i’m a virtue ethicist but i’m not even sure about that. my doubt about deontology comes from my (admittedly anecdotal) experience that most people seem to just sort of do what they want, and then make up a reason why it was the right thing to do. but this is sort of rambling. to be concise on this point, the categorical imperative implies, to me, that people ought to be treated as well as i would like to be treated. i don’t know what it’s like to be a chicken or a pig, but i can’t imagine that, as a pig, i’d expect any standard of behavior from people. as a person, i have no standard of behavior for the animals that prey on people.

    • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      i don’t know what it’s like to be a chicken or a pig

      But you do know what it’s like to suffer. And you know pigs, chickens, and other farm animals can suffer. Does that not count for anything? Or do you not consider suffering to be an inheriently bad thing?

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        suffering isn’t inherently immoral, and almost no ethical system treats it as such (there is one that comes to mind but it’s got big problems)

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            i think minimizing unnecessary suffering is probably a moral good, but not a moral duty.

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

                trying to prevent suffering might be laudable but i don’t think indifference in this respect is immoral.

                edit, i read too fast. i missed that you were asking about causing ME, A PERSON suffering. yea. you should be cognizant of that and avoid it when you can.

                • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  I think being indifferent to the suffering you cause on those around you is a moral failing. You said yourself you aim to treat people how you want to be treated, do you not care if those around you inflict suffering on you? I don’t see how indifference to suffering can be universalised.

                  Edit: didn’t see your edit before posting, I still don’t think you’ve justified why the unnecessary killing/causing suffering of a person and animal are different. Your argument seems very circular on this, killing humans and animals are different because they are different.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    i explained that my feelings on this were born out of the categorical imperative. i also hedged that, saying that im leaning lately toward virtue ethics rather than deontology, so i’m not really settled on my position at the moment.