Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Generally, people are very willing to accept that animals can be considered inferior to us and to each other ethically based upon their sentience. It works out pretty well and I think is one of the most important things to indicate to non-vegans when conversing with them. However, the application of this principle to humans often yields mixed results. Children and the severely intellectually disabled being two prime examples. Parental instinct along with cultural intuitions about protecting the weak make it very hard for people to see the inherent inferiority of children to adults. Of course, considering things such as family may make them more valuable ethically, but on their own, they tend to be lesser. Same with the disabled: especially with liberals, it is considered ignorant and heinous to question the value of the intellectually disabled.

Should this be omitted from conversations about ethics, unless specifically brought up? How can the blow be softened for people drunk with the ideal of equality?

[brimstoneSalad]

Should this be omitted from conversations about ethics, unless specifically brought up?

Yes, it's best to avoid the topic of human differences.

How can the blow be softened for people drunk with the ideal of equality?

You can talk about the utility of human rights, and how we must treat all people as having equal and inalienable social value due to the importance to social contract.

But outside that social contract (with non-human animals) their moral value is what's relevant.

[carnap]

Parental instinct along with cultural intuitions about protecting the weak make it very hard for people to see the inherent inferiority of children to adults. Of course, considering things such as family may make them more valuable ethically, but on their own, they tend to be lesser. Same with the disabled: especially with liberals, it is considered ignorant and heinous to question the value of the intellectually disabled.

What do you mean by "inherent inferiority of children"? Inferior in what sense? For example I'm pretty sure everyone will acknowledge that children are cognitively inferior to adults. And what do you mean by "value"? Moral value?

Whether you should talk about these things depends on what you're trying to do. If you're talking about moral philosophy its just fine, if you're trying to convince one to be vegan perhaps not.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

For whatever reason carnap, I read your posts like you’re angry at me!

For example I'm pretty sure everyone will acknowledge that children are cognitively inferior to adults. And what do you mean by "value"? Moral value?

Cognitively inferior and therefore morally inferior. Do you disagree with this?

[carnap]

Cognitively inferior and therefore morally inferior. Do you disagree with this?

I wouldn't agree with that and I don't think many people would as well. For example is someone with an IQ of 100 morally inferior to someone with a IQ of 150? And what does it mean to be "morally inferior" in the first place?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

For example is someone with an IQ of 100 morally inferior to someone with a IQ of 150?

Negligibly inferior because IQ increases mean less and less in terms intelligence as scores increase, but yes.

And what does it mean to be "morally inferior" in the first place?

Since one can only do good or evil to sentient beings, the degree of the sentience must be related to the goodness and evilness of particular actions. For example, it is less evil to kill a bug than a man due to the huge disparity of sentience, and so we might call the bug morally inferior to the man as he can create less good and receive less evil.

[carnap]

Negligibly inferior because IQ increases mean less and less in terms intelligence as scores increase, but yes.

I wouldn't agree with that but I think the more important question is what is meant by "inferior' here. That isn't clear at all.

Since one can only do good or evil to sentient beings, the degree of the sentience must be related to the goodness and evilness of particular actions. For example, it is less evil to kill a bug than a man due to the huge disparity of sentience, and so we might call the bug morally inferior to the man as he can create less good and receive less evil.

Goodness or evilness? What do you mean by those? Something to akin to Christian morality?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Goodness or evilness? What do you mean by those? Something to akin to Christian morality?

Good is defined as the fulfillment of interest and evil is defined as the violation of interest. Therefore, the goodness / evilness of an action is proportional to its fulfillment of good / evil, respectively. I couldn’t see it as similar to Christian morality since that is more deontological. Sorry for the confusion.

[carnap]

Good is defined as the fulfillment of interest and evil is defined as the violation of interest. Therefore, the goodness / evilness of an action is proportional to its fulfillment of good / evil, respectively. I couldn’t see it as similar to Christian morality since that is more deontological. Sorry for the confusion.

Interest in what sense? So would the goodness (or evilness) of me stealing a new car hinge on who had greater interests in the car? How do you compare interests? Is a rats interest in having a warm place to sleep greater than my interest in having a rodent free home?

I think your definition just creates more questions where as it should be clarifying the concepts.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Interest in what sense?

Interest meaning desire.

So would the goodness (or evilness) of me stealing a new car hinge on who had greater interests in the car?

If you and the other person were the only beings with interests, yes. Otherwise, it would favor the car owners, as the consistent maintenance of the law provides a much greater fulfillment of interest than you may suffer in violation.

How do you compare interests?

In one on one comparisons, the degree of sentience of desirerer and the degree of desire are proportional to the worthiness of fulfilling o e interest over another. As you introduce more beings, you have to consider the consequences of an interest and how that will probably impact other interests.

Is a rats interest in having a warm place to sleep greater than my interest in having a rodent free home?

Certainly not, as the rat is far less sentient than you and there is no others vouching for the rat’s interest.

I think your definition just creates more questions where as it should be clarifying the concepts.

Oof.