I don't think so.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:47 pm does this diminish the usefulness of the definition of woo as praxis based on falsehood?
There are religious consequentialists too, who base their reasoning on a religious inspired consequentialist ethic based on love as embodied by Christ (or insert deity). If you loved animals as yourself, you wouldn't do that to them.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:47 pmWe want religious demographics for veganism who openly couch their ethics in faith but it's important to go to arms with any of those who's actions are detrimental to consequentialist aims?
We probably want people using scriptural/conservative approaches too based on divine command, and that's Woo too of a sort, but when this leads to a generalized deontology that's a bigger problem (and I think more of a problem than a solution, because it's not going to appeal to conservatives anymore who are really interested in what scripture says and not what Kant reasoned).
There's scripture and then there's reason based morality, and I don't see deontology as belonging to either.
The second half was, since the first only established that animals are of some value, and the second half used that premise in an absolutist sense as having the same value, and applied a generalized formula for judgement of action that ignores consequences.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:47 pmSo lastly this conversation could have good crossover to AskYourself debate, was it right to call namethetrait absolutist deontological in its formulation and not simply an ideological overreach?
Unfortunately the image was already too long so there wasn't much I could do to explain that... it's also harder to explain.
I'll try to expand the more lengthy explanation on the forum to include that half if I have time.