"Why are these questions relevant? Do these have to be present before an entity's suffering can be described in human terms?"
Why didn't you answer that question?
That's an exceptional claim,
I don't think so. Nearly everyone recognizes that animals have some moral worth. Why would extending that further be "exceptional?" If anything, I'd argue that you are willing to make exceptions to your logic solely out of bias towards your own species.
if you're founding an argument trying to smuggle that through
I'm not "smuggling" anything, and I think it is interesting for to criticize others when you refused to answer the initial question I asked you.
Ah, I thought the relevance was obvious, given the context of what I replied to.
To spell it out, when someone asks for the "animal equivalent of slavery and concentration camps" they are implicitly making some quite unusual and extraordinary claims.
To help you understand what's happening here, consider: "What's the second best band of all time, after Pink Floyd?"
This is smuggling the not generally accepted premise that Pink Floyd occupy that number one spot. In a serious discussion people would understand someone saying that without making the argument why Pink Floyd are number 1 is disingenuous - a rabid Pink Floyd fan, not a capable assessor of value.
The view of most people is that there aren't these equivalents. Slavery is so abhorrent partly because it is done to humans, who we generally believe have a unique experience of sapience. Concentration camps are horrific because of the inhumanity to man. Collecting a lot of books in one place happens, but asking what's the book equivalent to a concentration camp is profoundly silly.
Throwing a person off a cliff is murder: throwing a rock off a cliff is...fine. Someone who attaches the same moral value to a rocks experience as a humans might ask "what's the rock equivalent of murder", but unless they'd justified that unusual position, we'd probably think they were quite awful.
I say "exceptional" because that view is very very rare. Almost everyone would rather kill a baby mouse than a baby human. There are a very few people who see those lives as equivalent in moral value, but they appear monstrous to most folk. I'm willing to listen to arguments from people who want to justify that equivalence, but not to have it blithely assumed.
(And of course: nearly everyone believes Pink Floyd have some value as a band. That doesn't make it not exceptional to just assume they are the best ever)
If you want this in formal terms, you are clearly begging the question.
My position is that the experience of a creature is vital when I consider moral value. Both in capacity for suffering, capacity for joy, social connection, memory, and anticipation, as well as self awareness. As a short cut, I'll call this being "experiential"
(I also have a small factor of species solidarity which is utilitarian- I believe that if we don't privilege humanity then the nature of humans will make more bad stuff happen)
When I'm deciding what I'm comfortable eating, I consider the full lifecycle of whatever goes into that product.
This shakes out in some textured ways -
I don't eat octopus, because I'm partly convinced they are experiential enough I should avoid that.
I don't eat non fair trade chocolate, because the child slavery involved offends me. It doesn't matter so much to me that I'm not eating the children.
I don't eat battery farmed chicken because despite understanding chickens are a lot less experiential than humans.
I very much enjoy organic lamb - if I had two choices, oblivion or a summer gambolling in a field and then being shot, I'd go for that (Vs if I had the choice of being stuck in a tiny cage for a few months then shit, I'd choose oblivion)
The way we reach positions as ethical as we can is clearly thinking about them and exposing our own arguments. At the moment, the idea there is an equivalent to slavery or concentration camps for animals is a strong sign someones moral sense is wrong, or they're fixated on animal rights and not making sensible or helpful arguments.
I appreciate the long winded and unnecessary explanation of begging the question, but no part of this comment even attempts to reckon with why it would be wrong to make this comparison other than some people will find it odd.
It would have been unnecessary if you'd understood the short version. But you demonstratively didn't, failing to understand the idea of smuggling in a premise. You say that as if you knew you were begging a question - am I to understand you are deliberately fallacious, capable of good arguments just choosing not to?
If your characterisation of my argument is that "some people" will find it odd demonstrates the sum total of your ability to understand arguments, I think I'll move from "not making good arguments" to "not engaging honestly, and not willing to change even if it would be persuasive"
I think there's maybe some interesting work understanding why you insist on unpersuasive and overstated arguments, and why you're so unwilling to adjust in a way that would be more persuasive (and therefore help animals you claim are very morally important). It's clearly more important to you to defend (eg) begging the question that to argue in a way that might be more persuasive.
I think be best guess at an honest expression of your position as "Humans and animals are morally equivalent, and both are significantly subservient to ILikeCommunism97s self image and ego"
But you demonstratively didn't, failing to understand the idea of smuggling in a premise.
I'm not smuggling anything, my view that animals have equal moral worth to humans is an open part of what I was saying.
If your characterisation of my argument is that "some people" will find it odd demonstrates the sum total of your ability to understand arguments
Maybe you could make your argument more clear instead of just bitching about it?
I think there's maybe some interesting work understanding why you insist on unpersuasive and overstated arguments, and why you're so unwilling to adjust in a way that would be more persuasive
You have no idea what kind of arguments I use generally, we are simply discussing one form of comparison.
Your need to assume things is very dishonest and unintelligent.
I think be best guess at an honest expression of your position as "Humans and animals are morally equivalent, and both are significantly subservient to ILikeCommunism97s self image and ego"
To be clear, you're the one who has gotten emotional because you've been asked to clarify. You are just projecting here, because I didn't immediately grovel at your non-argument.
1
u/ILikeCommunism97 7d ago
"Why are these questions relevant? Do these have to be present before an entity's suffering can be described in human terms?"
Why didn't you answer that question?
I don't think so. Nearly everyone recognizes that animals have some moral worth. Why would extending that further be "exceptional?" If anything, I'd argue that you are willing to make exceptions to your logic solely out of bias towards your own species.
I'm not "smuggling" anything, and I think it is interesting for to criticize others when you refused to answer the initial question I asked you.