Why do you have to be such a rude twat? — Ovaloid
Provide a link and - if it's not the entire post - a paragraph number, and I'd be happy to do so. — andrewk
I don't think it is intuitively accepted amongst the populace, as to accept it implies ascribing rights to a fertilised ovum, and hence being opposed to abortion at any term. According to that interesting survey posted by Barry (here), in all Western countries except the USA, the vast majority of people have no problem with early-term abortion and, even in the God-fearing USA, just over half have no problem with it. — andrewk
As to what alternative I have to offer, I just go with Jeremy Bentham's 'Can they suffer?'. This is completely consistent with my intuitions and just feels absolutely right. I understand that for some others, things like Freedom are more important, but for me 'Can they suffer' is the most important moral principle. — andrewk
Nowadays we can see films of the lives of animals in their natural habitat — jkop
I can't see any need to persuade you back. Virtue ethics is an excellent moral framework that will produce similar ethical conclusions in the vast majority of situations one is likely to encounter, so I doubt that society will be any the better or worse for you or I choosing to switch between a utilitarian and a virtue ethics framework.I would love to see how one of you can persuade me back. — Emptyheady
We should not selectively look at the flying, driving, and camping when the published films produce acquaintance, knowledge and empathy towards wild animals. If we'd only see Jaws, and other films that exploit our ignorance or selectively show wild animals as monsters, then the situation would be worse for the animals, and there would be little interest to fund organisations who work for animals' rights, preservation and so on. Urban populations would have no clue of the relation between their consumption and the fate of wild animals.Flying to somewhere in Africa, Central America, Nepal, Siberia, wherever, to drive around, camp, photograph, and so on isn't helping wild animals. — Bitter Crank
Actually, that's a problem with putting happiness at the centre. Putting suffering at the centre solves that because then the babies experience of suffering trumps the sadists' experience of pleasure.Ask you yourself the following moral question: "when is it morally justified to rape an innocent child?"
A consequentialist would answer: 'well that depends on the consequences.' A utilitarian could state that it depends whether it maximises the sum of aggregate happiness. This means that group rape could make raping morally more justifiable, and the larger the group, the better it would be. Sadism would be morally justified to indulge.
Putting "suffering" at the centre of your normative moral view is troubling. — Emptyheady
I wouldn't say I was a committed utilitarian, in the sense of being convinced that every decision I ever make should be made on utilitarian principles. I always leave the door open for other influences, be they deontological, virtue-based or something else. — andrewk
Easy. Animals have no rights and can therefore be used as property/utility by moral agents (i.e. humans). — Emptyheady
What makes us moral agents and them not?
Consiousness?
Rationality? — Ovaloid
What properties do humans have that give them those rights?
Would you be ok with being used as property/utility by beings with more of said properties? — Ovaloid
Oh the irony of animal lovers/leftists. Most vehement advocates of animals "rights", own animals in captivity. — Emptyheady
If animals do have rights, when can we start locking up animals in prison for killing other animals or making other animals suffer? — Emptyheady
"I like going to zoos" seems like one good justification of it to me. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.