3 ms·

Putting ethical and philosophical issues front-and-center, absolutely. Why is this a difficult argument to make? It's our disease. It affects our bodies. If

by asciimo 13y ago

Putting ethical and philosophical issues front-and-center, absolutely. Why is this a difficult argument to make? It's our disease. It affects our bodies. If we want a cure then we should put our own skin in the game.

ars 13y ago
"Our" or "your"? So basically you want to treat humans like animals? I assume you think you want to treat animals like humans, but that's not going to happen. If people listened to you it would end up going the other way. So I'm glad your opinion is a marginal one and that virtually everyone on the planet disagrees with you.
VLM 13y ago
Traditionally, we would be exclusively using "others" usually identified by race and religion, or perhaps socioeconomic class, so that's a pretty big wrench in the ethical / philosophical works. Not as simple ethically as rodents vs humans, more like rodents vs (most likely) non-white humans. Probably better off killing rodents than deciding which religion to genocide. The Germans did some scientific research under this protocol in the early 40s, its still highly controversial WRT should the results be destroyed and ignored out of respect or kept around as a memorial or ...
mapt 13y ago
Point of inquiry: Suppose it costs the animal kingdom 1,000,000,000,000 microbial animals of various sorts, 1,000,000,000 macroscopic arthropods, 1,000,000 vertebrates, and 10,000 mammals to live one life according to the lifestyle we expect in western society. If that's so, is it your moral/ethical/philosophical duty to kill yourself, and to kill other humans, whose environmental footprint is so great? Why not? You who would see species as peers, as independent entities worthy of a respect for their collective rights, I accuse you of being insufficiently imaginative, and lacking any sense of perspective. Your footprint on this earth is FAR costlier than the 1/1000th of a cow you didn't consume for dinner. Human exceptionalism, as a formal ethical principle, is pragmatically required if you wish your system of philosophy to be persuasive to essentially anyone. If you can't see this, you are either entirely ignorant of the processes of industrialized civilization, or you're exhibiting magical thinking. The species boundary forms a convenient natural Schelling Point at which it is particularly useful to distinguish between things deserving of empathy on equal footing with us, and things which are subhuman, inferior, not capable and thus not useful to incorporate into our model. Yes, things beyond this boundary still think and learn, still feel pain, and still form social relationships... but they're not, they can't be, the same as us, because they're not capable of fulfilling the roles of, nor exerting the pressure on our social contracts necessary to change them.

by asciimo 13y ago

ars 13y ago

"Our" or "your"? So basically you want to treat humans like animals? I assume you think you want to treat animals like humans, but that's not going to happen. If people listened to you it would end up going the other way. So I'm glad your opinion is a marginal one and that virtually everyone on the planet disagrees with you.

VLM 13y ago

Traditionally, we would be exclusively using "others" usually identified by race and religion, or perhaps socioeconomic class, so that's a pretty big wrench in the ethical / philosophical works. Not as simple ethically as rodents vs humans, more like rodents vs (most likely) non-white humans. Probably better off killing rodents than deciding which religion to genocide. The Germans did some scientific research under this protocol in the early 40s, its still highly controversial WRT should the results be destroyed and ignored out of respect or kept around as a memorial or ...

mapt 13y ago

Point of inquiry: Suppose it costs the animal kingdom 1,000,000,000,000 microbial animals of various sorts, 1,000,000,000 macroscopic arthropods, 1,000,000 vertebrates, and 10,000 mammals to live one life according to the lifestyle we expect in western society. If that's so, is it your moral/ethical/philosophical duty to kill yourself, and to kill other humans, whose environmental footprint is so great? Why not? You who would see species as peers, as independent entities worthy of a respect for their collective rights, I accuse you of being insufficiently imaginative, and lacking any sense of perspective. Your footprint on this earth is FAR costlier than the 1/1000th of a cow you didn't consume for dinner. Human exceptionalism, as a formal ethical principle, is pragmatically required if you wish your system of philosophy to be persuasive to essentially anyone. If you can't see this, you are either entirely ignorant of the processes of industrialized civilization, or you're exhibiting magical thinking. The species boundary forms a convenient natural Schelling Point at which it is particularly useful to distinguish between things deserving of empathy on equal footing with us, and things which are subhuman, inferior, not capable and thus not useful to incorporate into our model. Yes, things beyond this boundary still think and learn, still feel pain, and still form social relationships... but they're not, they can't be, the same as us, because they're not capable of fulfilling the roles of, nor exerting the pressure on our social contracts necessary to change them.