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

    Once you go to a deep enough layer I think you’re right. But, the one subjective thing my argument rests on is that you care about your own experience. Anyone who flinches away from touching a hot stove because it hurts cares about their experience at least a little. The next step is recognizing that from an objective view, there’s no reason to think your subjective experience is any more important than anyone elses (subjectively there is).

      • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months 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
          11 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, say, mosquitos . or mice. or dogs or cats. or fish. or livestock.

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

              • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months 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?

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

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