Evidently I’m not sure what you’re asking me for, so please excuse my attempt to fulfill that.
carnap wrote: ↑Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:01 pmI don't think that clarifies anything, "desire" is a concept notion just as much as "interest".
An interest or a desire is the feeling experienced when one cares or would prefer that something be or happen. For example, we can refer to wanting a car as a desire as it is characterized by the preference that a car be made of one’s possession, over say, that you may own it, or the car is destroyed.
carnap wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:04 pmWhy would the law be relevant here?
Because the law begets less violation of interest than no law, so weakening it, by say, favoring car thiefs, entails a weakening of this protection.
carnap wrote:That just begs the question, what justifies the existing laws?
That’s true and I’m sorry about that. I think existing laws are justified (in the western world) because they are usually not terrible and promote consideration of others’ interests. For example, laws against stealing promote keeping owners fulfilled by providing incentives for not stealing their property. Of course, there is a violation of interest for thiefs, but losses are often more damaging than gains are fulfilling, so they are less violated, not to mention that many will not only deterred from thievery, but will lose interest in it because of societal conditioning.
If my interest in a new car can be greater than the legal owner and therefore I can be justified in stealing the car then we have laws that violate our ethical standards.
But there are more than two people in reality, and the laws do more than violate the thief’s interest, which greatly outweighs his loss.
We could have a new law, for example, before I take the new car I would have to justify in court that my "interest" is greater. If I win the ownership of the car changes to me.
Sure, but there are more than 2 people invested in any given car, and that would become tedious and expensive to calculate as extended family and friends are interviewed to determine their preference. The money could be spent better on welfare programs, for example.
carnap wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:04 pmHow does this explain how you'd actually compare?
Degree of desire and degree of sentience are proportional to moral value, and in comparisons involving more than two entities, the number favoring a given side is proportional to its moral value. We consider all three of these when making a comparison.
To measure to degree of desire with people, simply ask them how much they want it. For animals and others that can’t communicate easily, use knowledge of how they respond to certain situations. For example, if a dog makes a mild bark when pushed to the side, while crying when kicked, we can be fairly certain the dog prefers to not be kicked more than he prefers to not be brushed off to the side. The same can be said for fulfillment’s: do the rats come to one food more quickly than the other? If so, we can say that the rat prefers the first over the second.
We can really only ballpark sentience. Probably the best way is to compare brain to body mass ratios. Other marks of intelligence are useful as well, such as being able to recognize oneself or group behavior.
The last one just involves counting. Still, not all of the entities can be considered equal, so it could be useful to count in groups: 20 people and 2 dogs want to eat 8 goats, for example.
carnap wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:04 pmWhat principles were used to evaluate the situation?
You are more sentient than the rat. You probably want the rat out less than the rat wants to stay in the house. No one cares about the rat and probably no one cares about how the rat affects you. However, you are significantly more sentient than the rat, so the good thing for some outside actor to pick would be to give priority to your interests. However, the good thing for you to do would be to accommodate the rat (unless guests who came over often hated the rat).
carnap wrote:So if an animal is less sentient that justifies me violating its interest?
Ideally you and the rat could find a way to live in harmony or you could make the rat your pet or something, but that isn’t practical for most people, and it is easy to redeem yourself for petty violations by doing charitable works.
carnap wrote:So that would be a justification for raising animals for food...right? Humans are far more sentient than cow's so our interests have more importance than there interests so we can raise them for food.
Except that it is feasible and practicable to choose the “live in harmony” path with animals. If it weren’t, sure, but it is for most people in the developed world. Not to mention that more food could be produced if the resources allocated to animal agriculture were allocated elsewhere.