"indirect rights" Deontology & Consequentialism
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:50 am
This is an assertion, not an argument. So where is your argument sentience is not only morally relevant....but the only relevant factor.Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:34 pm It is called Argument from Relevance. To morally regard an individual means to take its interests (desires) into consideration. When making moral decisions, rational people should only take into account relevant factors. Consequentialists regard those who can be benefited or harmed, and when making decisions attempt to increase well-being and reduce suffering.
I don't see any argument, could you please clearly state your argument by identifying the premises and conclusion? And, no, sentience isn't the only characteristic that is relevant to the experience of suffering. For example the ability for self-awareness has clear implications in terms of how an entity would suffer. Also the ability for sentience doesn't necessitate the ability for suffering, sentience just means that an entity has some sort of inner experience.
Valid counter-argument to what precisely? I've never suggested that race is morally relevant so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:34 pm I’m trying to drive home the point the they are all irrelevant. People do not ascribe traits like race or class to moral consideration because it is not relevant to one's ability to be harmed. Rather than refuting me, you continue feigning ignorance. So at this point it's safe to assume you don't have a valid counter-argument.
Consequentialism, in general, isn't about reducing "unnecessary harm"....what you're referring to is a very specific moral theory. And before you can meaningfully talk about the "interests" of non-human entities, you need to first define what the term means outside of the human context.Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:34 pm All sentient beings have interests (such as the desire to be free of harm) and overriding that individual's interests with no proper justification is objectively bad. Consequentialists care about reducing unnecessary harm (harm that isn't morally justified).
What reason is there to believe that "all sentient beings" have a desire to be free of harm? That would require abstract thoughts and very few animals seem to have the capacity for abstract thinking.
What does it mean to "harm in a moral sense"? The definition of "harm" isn't moralistic.
Yes there is but the ability for operant condition says nothing about intention. Learning doesn't require consciousness at all.Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:34 pm Is there evidence that plants respond to operant conditioning? Operant conditioning controls for behaviors that are not present in nature, and the individual learns to associate various stimuli with different cognitive experiences (like well-being and harm).
[link]http://theconversation.com/pavlovs-plan ... ence-69794[/link]