4 ms·
Are you saying that we shouldn't have any moral consideration towards beings that don't have the cognitive capacity to understand ethics? If that's the case, d
by PerfectElement 10y ago
Are you saying that we shouldn't have any moral consideration towards beings that don't have the cognitive capacity to understand ethics?
If that's the case, do you think it's okay if a human sets a dog on fire just for fun? How about mentally challenged humans? Should their pain be disregarded?
P.S: I didn't down vote.
- virmundi 10y agoI'm arguing that any moral consideration you have is arbitrary. If you want to protect dogs, go ahead. If the person lighting them kills you in the process, I can't necessarily say it's wrong, as an agnostic. If you can band together with other pro-life dog watchers, you can probably force your view. You don't have any more hold on the Truth than the Dog Lighters of America. You're not more legitimate in an ultimate sense. It comes down to, who can create a board with the biggest nail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_II). I just want people to realize that.
- PerfectElement 10y agoNo, it's not arbitrary at all. It's based on the concept that inflicting pain and suffering on another being should be justified. I'm sure that given the choice between not being tortured and being tortured, you would pick the former. And that's because you recognize that pain -even if subjective and sometimes necessary- is a negative feeling for the one experiencing it. What's arbitrary is saying that you don't want to inflict pain on human babies but are okay with inflicting pain on baby pigs, assuming both are equally capable of experiencing pain and distress. You are picking an arbitrary trait (species) and ignoring the relevant one (ability to feel pain).