4 ms·
One reason is that we can communicate with (most) other humans to establish the shared boundary in a way we cannot (as reliably?) with other life. I make no pa
by dllthomas 6y ago
One reason is that we can communicate with (most) other humans to establish the shared boundary in a way we cannot (as reliably?) with other life.
I make no particular claim here as to how this reason should be weighed against the various other reasons pulling in the various directions.
- Falling3 6y agoHow is that actually relevant though? Do your morals change when it comes to humans you cannot communicate with?
- mvid 6y agoHistorically, that seems pretty common
- dllthomas 6y agoOne of the things "morals" is is a negotiation with society about what should be construed as blameworthy. Potential participants in that negotiation may have different treatment without, as you said, it "rest[ing] completely on logical fallacies," which is why I brought it up. I am not saying this makes up the entirety of my moral system, and I am explicitly (here) saying that a naive application does not.