4 ms·

It seems you’re firmly putting yourself in the second category. I’ll take the risk of landing in the first one.

Zababa 5y ago
I am, yes. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that before, but in no way I think that what I'm doing is better than what other people are doing. When I question the priority of human and animal welfare, I do it from a position of curiosity, not of superiority. My point is that if you want to convince me that animal welfare should be the thing to focus on right now, articles like that aren't helping, since they can easily be replicated to defend other positions.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Why do you think we only need to focus on one issue at a time? You’re setting yourself up for failure, as you’re saying you need to be convinced that this moral issue is the “most important” (by whatever metric that requires). Instead, we can accept that there are many issues worth addressing, and we can make a dent in any number of them. If you want to stop supporting unfathomable violence against innocent sentient being, just stop paying people to kill them. That doesn’t mean you can’t also advocate for issues like clean water for all, or ending malaria, or donating to a homeless shelter in your town. We rarely actually need to make compromises on the amount of good we can contribute to the world.
- adriand 5y ago
  > My point is that if you want to convince me that animal welfare should be the thing to focus on right now, articles like that aren't helping It’s not that it’s “the” thing but rather “a” thing worth focusing on. We can improve in more than one area at a time. > since they can easily be replicated to defend other positions That’s the point of the article: it replicated a current argument (against honouring slaveholders) to highlight a different but morally similar situation. The logic is simply to extend compassion and consideration to groups of beings that the majority does not currently believe warrant that. So yes, you could easily replicate this article’s argument to advocate defense of other vulnerable creatures, whether human or not. But that’s not a critique, that’s the intention.
- Sporktacular 5y ago
  Can't the focus be on being less cruel generally? I think this is creating a false choice by making arbitrary definitions and using them as the reason to write off an issue. Another form could be "why should I focus on violence against women when that would mean ignoring violence against men" or a given race or whatever.

I am, yes. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that before, but in no way I think that what I'm doing is better than what other people are doing. When I question the priority of human and animal welfare, I do it from a position of curiosity, not of superiority. My point is that if you want to convince me that animal welfare should be the thing to focus on right now, articles like that aren't helping, since they can easily be replicated to defend other positions.

sweetheart 5y ago
Why do you think we only need to focus on one issue at a time? You’re setting yourself up for failure, as you’re saying you need to be convinced that this moral issue is the “most important” (by whatever metric that requires). Instead, we can accept that there are many issues worth addressing, and we can make a dent in any number of them. If you want to stop supporting unfathomable violence against innocent sentient being, just stop paying people to kill them. That doesn’t mean you can’t also advocate for issues like clean water for all, or ending malaria, or donating to a homeless shelter in your town. We rarely actually need to make compromises on the amount of good we can contribute to the world.
adriand 5y ago
> My point is that if you want to convince me that animal welfare should be the thing to focus on right now, articles like that aren't helping It’s not that it’s “the” thing but rather “a” thing worth focusing on. We can improve in more than one area at a time. > since they can easily be replicated to defend other positions That’s the point of the article: it replicated a current argument (against honouring slaveholders) to highlight a different but morally similar situation. The logic is simply to extend compassion and consideration to groups of beings that the majority does not currently believe warrant that. So yes, you could easily replicate this article’s argument to advocate defense of other vulnerable creatures, whether human or not. But that’s not a critique, that’s the intention.
Sporktacular 5y ago
Can't the focus be on being less cruel generally? I think this is creating a false choice by making arbitrary definitions and using them as the reason to write off an issue. Another form could be "why should I focus on violence against women when that would mean ignoring violence against men" or a given race or whatever.