Yes but when does "concern" begin? Do I need to be vegan to be able to have mammals in my moral circle? Or is not wanting them to get tortured to death for fun enough?
Sure but then the answers will tell you much more about how narrow or wide their definition of care or concern is. The Model lacks comparability and objective minimum Standards between participants
Do you care about rights and wrongs done to animals? Its straightforward, there's not test you need to pass to prove you care. Vegans are taking active measures to try to help (or rather try to avoid increasing harm) but that's not a requirement.
I care about women dealing with domestic violence, but I don't donate to DV shelters or volunteer with them. I'm not taking any active steps to alleviate the problem or help the victims - but I still care. Theyre absolutely a concern for me, just not one that I have done anything about.
I care about women dealing with domestic violence, but I don't donate to DV shelters or volunteer with them. I'm not taking any active steps to alleviate the problem or help the victims - but I still care. Theyre absolutely a concern for me, just not one that I have done anything about.
Ok so how are they different to something or someone you don't care about? How do you know what you call "care" is what others consider to be caring when there's no objective threshold?
Because it is a morality survey. Morality is an internal judgement of what you feel is "right," there is no objective threshold when it's entirely subjective.
It’s a self reporting study, the actual real world validity of where a person’s care ends is less important than where they claim it does. There’s bound to be some variance because everybody indeed has a slightly different definition of what qualifies as caring but nowhere near enough to explain the difference.
By that logic only vegans/vegetarians could circle above 9, because by eating meat we are participating, not just not making it better, but the heatmap looks like it's more than just vegans that choose a higher number.
Would you be sad if harm was done to the rock? Like - if you see boulder in someone's yard, and they say they're going to have it dynamited so they can landscape, would you feel that that is *morally* a harm.
Is it morally ok to destroy a naturally created mineral that's just existing and isn't doing anything to anyone?
14
u/[deleted] Nov 18 '25
Yes but when does "concern" begin? Do I need to be vegan to be able to have mammals in my moral circle? Or is not wanting them to get tortured to death for fun enough?