3 ms·
I don't think the article is prescribing a particular moral position. It is saying, though, if you believe your choices are predicated on animals not being cons
by DFHippie 8y ago
I don't think the article is prescribing a particular moral position. It is saying, though, if you believe your choices are predicated on animals not being conscious, and therefore suffering no harm whatever your actions, perhaps your own moral system requires that you behave differently. This is the case even if lions continue eating zebras.
- joe_the_user 8y agoOh, the problem isn't the article arguing an ethical position. It's more the article is exploring a bunch of different concepts with all of them labeled "consciousness". I mean, would a "philosophical zombie" pass the mirror test? Does that even matter?
- pdonis 8y ago> would a "philosophical zombie" pass the mirror test? Since a philosophical zombie's behavior is, by definition, indistinguishable from that of a conscious person's, yes, such a thing would pass the mirror test. As well as any other test of consciousness based on observable behavior that we could devise. IMO that's a reductio ad absurdum of the concept of a philosophical zombie. I agree that a lot of different concepts can get lumped under the label "consciousness", and that there is a wide spectrum of capabilities involved, not just a binary thing that's either there or not there. If the question is whether or not an animal is suffering, I'm going to go with observable behavior over theoretical concepts.