2 ms·

Suffering is very real. I know, because I have experienced it. It is a bad thing to experience. Therefore, when I know—or reasonably believe—that something can

Suffering is very real. I know, because I have experienced it. It is a bad thing to experience. Therefore, when I know—or reasonably believe—that something can experience it, I want to minimize that, because I care about the experiences of living things. We know, or reasonably believe, that dogs can have experiences, and feel pain, and thus can feel suffering. We know that a clockwork toy cannot have experiences, and thus cannot experience suffering. You may pontificate on all you want about what's really real and other deep philosophical concepts, or about edge cases; meanwhile, I will be here in actual reality, which I perceive and experience, where I am able to make very clear and straightforward observations of what is true in the majority of cases. (And to be clear: I am not saying that it is not important to understand the philosophical implications of things, nor that edge cases don't matter. I am saying that they do not negate very clear and observable facts about our universe. The existence of gray areas does not mean there are not things that are clearly black, or clearly white.)

card_zero 2y ago
OK, the Johnson vs. Boswell "I refute it thus!" thing. That's fine, I approve of this objectivity, I disapprove of sophists trying to make real things vanish through argument. But what's real is what has qualities. Dr. Johnson's rock was real because it had solidity. When kicked or whatever (Wikipedia says "stomped") it resists, and if subjected to geological inspection it yield rock-like information - or to switch from rock to ducks, what walks like a duck, quacks, etc., is a duck. What I'm saying here, though, is that suffering doesn't have qualities unless attached to ideas and relevant to knowledge. I also keep mentioning the social angle because I think that might be crucial to morality. Though I suppose I value knowledge in isolation too. I'm confident, anyway, that I don't value neurons, or any other kind of fancy cabling, in of itself. But, I'm short on time right now, will have to drop this and run (mercifully).

card_zero 2y ago

OK, the Johnson vs. Boswell "I refute it thus!" thing. That's fine, I approve of this objectivity, I disapprove of sophists trying to make real things vanish through argument. But what's real is what has qualities. Dr. Johnson's rock was real because it had solidity. When kicked or whatever (Wikipedia says "stomped") it resists, and if subjected to geological inspection it yield rock-like information - or to switch from rock to ducks, what walks like a duck, quacks, etc., is a duck. What I'm saying here, though, is that suffering doesn't have qualities unless attached to ideas and relevant to knowledge. I also keep mentioning the social angle because I think that might be crucial to morality. Though I suppose I value knowledge in isolation too. I'm confident, anyway, that I don't value neurons, or any other kind of fancy cabling, in of itself. But, I'm short on time right now, will have to drop this and run (mercifully).