> For starters, it's very common for criminals to have a different "opinion" about their crimes than the victims. Society doesn't just stop fighting crime becau

> For starters, it's very common for criminals to have a different "opinion" about their crimes than the victims. Society doesn't just stop fighting crime because a consensus is hard to find with the perpetrators. There's a bit of begging the question going on here. My whole point is that we shouldn't take all of our moral intuitions and call those who violate them criminals. And the question of which "crimes" have "victims" is sometimes ambiguous, e.g. with abortion and medical experimentation. Some of our moral intuitions should be enforced. Others shouldn't. We have a responsibility to think about which is which. It doesn't mean there has to be universal agreement. But there does have to be some pragmatism, otherwise we just fight forever because we can't agree on everything and no progress gets made - or worse, the world is consumed with violence, one of the main outcomes we were trying to avoid. > How we treat non-humans, we eventually, always, treat humans. This is simply not true. People who work in animal medical testing don't turn into worse people than the rest of us.