commie
@commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
#if you’re here because you think i’m antivegan, i want you to know i’m not
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.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 6 months ago:
name the trait is a fallacious line of argument because it falls prey to the linedrawing fallacy.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
it’s also an argument for veganism
no, it’s not
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
detente
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
calling me names doesn’t make what I said untrue
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months 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.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
either it’s true that you can write an axiom that says “sentient beings should always consent to anything that is done to them” or you can write an axiom that says “you should always do what will bring about the most happiness or at least distress”
those axioms are in conflict with one another. it’s not that there’s only bad choices. it’s that you’ve given yourself conflicting standards.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months 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, sat, mosquitos . or mice. or dogs or cats. or fish. or livestock.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
and a bible believing Christian has a clear answer: it doesn’t matter, you have dominion, do what you want. I imagine you don’t like that reasoning, but it, to, gives clear guidance on the morality.
I’m not talking about whether you live your values, I’m suggesting you don’t understand the implications of your own values, and under scrutiny you would find them internally inconsistent.
which is fine, as long as you’re not going out and telling others the right thing to do.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
we are going to, once again, disagree on the relevant definition of “anyone”.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
right…
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
all subjective opinions, like ethics or aesthetics, are.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
this is an impossible standard, and I don’t believe it’s one you actually ascribe to: for instance, pretty much everyone is ok with sterilizing stray dogs and cats, and there is never a question of consent.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
I mean there is no objective reason to set the standard at sentience any more than any other standard.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
once again, we are going to be disagreeing on the relevant definitions of “someone”.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
I’m not saying it is objective, I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.
this can’t be true. it’s self-contradictory.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
sentience and consent have nothing to do with one another.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
you think gross things are immoral?
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
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.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
yea. that, too, is an aesthetic issue. it can be gross without being immoral.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
I don’t think dog fighting is a moral issue: at worst, it’s aesthetic.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
I’m not presenting an argument. I’m questioning yours.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
why sentience and not DNA? or literally any other characteristic? your standard is absolutely arbitrary.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
not everyone is in this Lemmy thread.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
we should also remember that culture is not a good reason to hurt others
I suspect we disagree about the relevant definition of “others”
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
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.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
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.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
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.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
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. 7 months 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.
- Comment on Fish have heart too. 7 months ago:
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 subjectivity 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.