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.
Comment on Fish have heart too.
oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 year agothere are other approaches to sentientism that aren’t based on valence. I don’t feel like writing a book on the different ones, but to give an example of a rights based one that I think is strong is that every sentient being has, at the very least, a right to their body, since that’s the one thing they’re born with and that is (almost certainly) what gives rise to their sentience in the first place. And to violate another sentient beings bodily autonomy is to forfeit your own (a sort of low level social contract), which allows for self defense and defending others
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. 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
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 year ago
Then present yours lol
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
I’m not presenting an argument. I’m questioning yours.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
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@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
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.