brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:02 pm
Ah, not really.
Hedonistic interests are one kind of interest. So, hedonistic frameworks can be contained within preference based ones, but not the other way around.
To consider preferences IS to consider hedonistic preferences too.
But to have only a hedonistic framework is to invalidate all other preferences and say they don't exist or don't matter (even for people who say they do for them).
I get your logic. Still, they seem intertwined to me. Respecting interests is good because that contributes to maximum well being, which is inextricably related to pleasure, in any way I can imagine. But, I'm no psychologist. Interests and well being could almost be used interchangeably, in my opinion.
Just to clarify, though, that wouldn't prove that taking an animal's life is the ideal way to respect their well being. I can mostly agree that a hedonistic framework, where its acceptable to kill animals painlessly, is probably not respectful of their interests, or their well being.
Deva wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmSo for me, as a human, it may be a bit arbitrary to value positive emotions and totally devalue the other "negative" emotions.
That's not what I mean. In physical terms, all we're talking about is nerves responding and sending signals.
The reasons pleasure is better than pain is because the
mind prefers pleasure over pain.
The only way you substantiate the value of pleasure is by pointing to preferences.
IF and only if preferences don't matter, then it's all arbitrary.
The mind prefers it because it is conducive to the mind's well being. Everything humans and animals do is in some way, effectively or ineffectively, directly or indirectly, an attempt at being well, in my view.
I think we are now talking about the same thing (well being and preference), but we are using different words. The word "preference" just sounds kind of unconvincing to me is all.
Deva wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmMy assumption was that for animals, the only thing that would matter was the feeling positive ones, and not suffering. But perhaps that is not the case.
What matters is preferences, and of course most of us don't prefer to be stuck in mindless euphoria. So in a sense negative experiences are valuable too, although only to an extent. You don't need to experience immense suffering to have a capacity for understanding the value of happiness.
I agree, you probably don't need any suffering for happiness to be valuable to you.
Deva wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmHumans value their lives, the fact that we exist sentiently. We contemplate it and derive fulfillment and some level of fascination with the idea of it.
Some people do, perhaps.
Most people are also completely misinformed about what they are, believing they are powered by magical souls that make choices based on influence from the holy spirit and demons. Do people lose moral value by incorrectly understanding their existential natures?
No, it wouldn't.
Deva wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmSo, it would follow that an animal's sentient existence is probably inherently valuable as well. Its who and what they are, I guess.
Yes, generally.
Most beings at least seem to enjoy living, as long as they aren't made miserable.
Deva wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmNow I'm saying that perhaps their sentient existence is valuable in and of itself, for reasons other than the ability to contemplate it.
Yes, I think that's more credible.
Otherwise the billions of Christians and Muslims would have no moral value because they incorrectly identify their existential natures.
I see your point.
But in a way its not really the same, because they still have an appreciation of their existential nature (if incorrect in its details), while an animal quite possibly does not, in many cases. Would that make an animal's existence valueless to them? Probably not quite.
Here's another way to put it:
Non-human animals have the
same sentience as humans.
The only difference is that humans understand our sentience.
That could in itself be an arguement
for animals having the same moral value as humans, because if we value that sentience consciously, then an animal too must value it, unconsciously. Or, it could mean that an animal has less value than a human, because it does not value it, even unconsciously.
(Either way, of course), because of idealized interests, a chicken needs to live in order for its actual interests (happiness, love, etc.) to be fulfilled.