= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on Arguments Against Speciesism - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (474)
Is it possible to create some rule like this? Yeah, sure.
The problem is that you have to explain why that rule is valid.
If two babies are being tortured and one will die tomorrow but the other grows into an adult, your rule would claim that we should only stop one torture, and it's not clear why since their phenomenal pain is identical.
Some people value the future-potential of things and even give them moral value in cases when the present-time precursor or cause clearly has no moral status of its own. This corresponds to many people's moral intuitions, and so they don't need to explain why this is valid.
If you believe sole justification for a moral proposition is that you think it's intuitively correct, then no one is ever wrong, and these types of articles are rather pointless, no?
I'm a moral anti-realist. I don't think there's a "true objective" ethics out there written into the fabric of the Universe for us to discover.
That doesn't mean there is no such thing as morals, or that debating them is pointless. Morals are part of what we are and we perceive them as moral intuitions. Because we (humans) are very similar to one another, our moral intuition are also fairly similar, and so it makes sense to discuss morals, because we can influence one another, change our minds, better understand each other, and come to agreement or trade values.
Nobody is ever "right" or "wrong" about morals. You can only be right or wrong about questions of fact, and the only factual, empirical thing about morals is what moral intuitions some particular person has at a point in time.