I stumbled upon this argument by listening to a fellow vegan YouTuber. It's called "The Argument from Relevance" which basically asserts that the only morally relevant "distinction" or trait for moral consideration is sentience. It's pretty similar in style to NTT, but this is a stand alone argument, not just a consistency test. The argument has two parts.
(1) We should make our decisions on the basis of what is relevant to the effects they will have.
(2) When we respect someone, we take into account how our decisions can harm or benefit them, and try to benefit and not harm.
(3) What is relevant to someone being benefited or harmed is their capacity to be benefited or harmed.
(4) We should respect those who can be benefited or harmed.
(4) We should respect those who can be benefited or harmed.
(5) Sentient beings are the ones that can be benefited or harmed.
(6) We should respect sentient beings.
What does everyone think?
Argument From Relevance
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10280
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Argument From Relevance
Is 6 the only conclusion? If so, it's a long list of premises. (I assume 4 is repeated by accident, and not to establish a two part argument).
It seems OK, I don't see any gaping logical flaws (doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I don't see them right now).
The form is a little complicated though, so it may be a little confusing.
Where did you find this presented?
It seems OK, I don't see any gaping logical flaws (doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I don't see them right now).
The form is a little complicated though, so it may be a little confusing.
Where did you find this presented?
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:44 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Argument From Relevance
From what I understand, the argument is declaring 2 main things;brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:36 pm Is 6 the only conclusion? If so, it's a long list of premises. (I assume 4 is repeated by accident, and not to establish a two part argument).
It seems OK, I don't see any gaping logical flaws (doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I don't see them right now).
The form is a little complicated though, so it may be a little confusing.
1: One should gage the morality of his action off of the result it yields. Basically a consequential argument.
2: Sentience is the only relevant trait on the ability to be harmed or benefited.
From my understanding, the premises do not lead to two separate arguments, rather, they're just two parts of the same argument. Respect means taking one's ability to suffer into account, and that sentience is the only relevant trait in one's ability to suffer. I hope I'm not misinterpreting this.
Should've linked! It's on Animal Ethics.org. http://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/relevance-of-sentience/argument-relevance/
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10280
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Argument From Relevance
I would just say something like:
P1. It's impossible to respect the interests of a being that has no interests.
P2. All and Only sentient beings have interests.
C. It's only possible to respect sentient beings/it's possible to respect any sentient being.
This is a little more obvious.
The statement number 4 is placed in a way (and following other premises) that makes it look like it's supposed to be a conclusion.
If it's meant to be a conclusion from those premises, I don't think it follows.
P1. It's impossible to respect the interests of a being that has no interests.
P2. All and Only sentient beings have interests.
C. It's only possible to respect sentient beings/it's possible to respect any sentient being.
This is a little more obvious.
The statement number 4 is placed in a way (and following other premises) that makes it look like it's supposed to be a conclusion.
If that's only a premise and not meant to be a conclusion from the former premises, all of those other premises (1-3) seem unnecessary.(4) We should respect those who can be benefited or harmed.
If it's meant to be a conclusion from those premises, I don't think it follows.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:44 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Argument From Relevance
This is probably the simplest and most comprehensive way to write the argument. I'm not sure why it's written the other way in two-part "steps" on the website. I guess the person/people who created the argument wanted to establish that we should morally consider those who have morally relevant traits, and that sentience is the only relevant trait.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:59 pm I would just say something like:
P1. It's impossible to respect the interests of a being that has no interests.
P2. All and Only sentient beings have interests.
C. It's only possible to respect sentient beings/it's possible to respect any sentient being.
Of course, as you stated, "Part 2" of the argument stands alone just fine:
p1: We should respect those who can be benefited or harmed.
p2: Sentient beings are the ones that can be benefited or harmed.
c: We should respect sentient beings.
I'm not sure if "part 1" of this argument makes sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
(1) We should make our decisions on the basis of what is relevant to the effects they will have.
(2) When we respect someone, we take into account how our decisions can harm or benefit them, and try to benefit and not harm.
(3) What is relevant to someone being benefited or harmed is their capacity to be benefited or harmed.
C: We should respect those who can be benefited or harmed.
Premises 1-3 seem like they're saying the same thing in different ways. And I don't see how they lead to the conclusion.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10280
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Argument From Relevance
You're not wrong. If 4 is actually meant to be a conclusion and not a premise, then it doesn't make any sense.
If that's a conclusion, they're trying to get the first should to lead to it. The problem is nothing suggests that we should respect anything. It only says when we respect someone... etc.(1) We should make our decisions on the basis of what is relevant to the effects they will have.
(2) When we respect someone, we take into account how our decisions can harm or benefit them, and try to benefit and not harm.
(3) What is relevant to someone being benefited or harmed is their capacity to be benefited or harmed.
C: We should respect those who can be benefited or harmed.
If it said something like "We should respect someone if it's possible to do so", then it might follow.
- DrSinger
- Full Member
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Argument From Relevance
The link doesnt work anymore
http://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/relevance-of-sentience/argument-relevance
Also I agree that the first part of the argument is unnecessary, and probably invalid. If they want something simple and straightforward like proposed in this vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfI4kHYhYm8&feature=youtu.be
I'd suggest.
Part 1
(P1) If a being can experience well-being or harm then they deserve moral consideration
(P2) sentient animals can experience well-being or harm
(C) sentient animals deserve moral consideration
Part 2
(P1) If a being deserves moral consideration then it is wrong to treat them the way we treat sentient animals
(P2) sentient animals deserve moral consideration
(C) It is wrong to treat sentient animals the way we do
http://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/relevance-of-sentience/argument-relevance
Also I agree that the first part of the argument is unnecessary, and probably invalid. If they want something simple and straightforward like proposed in this vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfI4kHYhYm8&feature=youtu.be
I'd suggest.
Part 1
(P1) If a being can experience well-being or harm then they deserve moral consideration
(P2) sentient animals can experience well-being or harm
(C) sentient animals deserve moral consideration
Part 2
(P1) If a being deserves moral consideration then it is wrong to treat them the way we treat sentient animals
(P2) sentient animals deserve moral consideration
(C) It is wrong to treat sentient animals the way we do