Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Skarr87 t1_j5puzk7 wrote

I believe it can be dangerous to base treatment of an organism on its cognitive ability alone. Say if I had greater cognitive ability than another human to the extent that the difference between me and that human was greater than the difference of that human and a flea then what justification could be given for me to not treat them as they would treat a flea? I believe my treatment of other organisms should be determined by that organism’s capacity to suffer from whatever action I am taking against it and whether that action is necessary. It’s intelligence or emotional depth shouldn’t matter ethically in my opinion. It is my belief that because humans have a tendency to treat other people and animals that are more similar to them better we also tend to frame that justification through a similar lens which is the incorrect justification.

I agree with 99% of what you said. It’s just at the last part my justification would be if the flea is capable of experiencing suffering equal to the dog is what would give me moral considerations for its treatment.

14

UncleGizmo t1_j5pwjn8 wrote

You have just outlined the conundrum that many philosophies and religions try to justify or explain. A buddhist may say harming a flea and a dog are equal because we are all connected, whereas some Christian faiths delineate between humans and “lesser animals”.

It’s also why it’s not so simple to define “personhood”, as the post indicates.

6

TarantinoFan23 t1_j5q5r26 wrote

What is the conundrum? Don't kill stuff. Feed everything. Farm a ton of food. Easy.

0

Plutonic-Planet-42 t1_j5qrpqj wrote

So easy!

Let bacteria proliferate, don’t vaccinate, leave the tumours, and stop cleaning and eradicating 99% of all germs!

You’re being speciesist if you don’t guarantee omicron more hosts!

3

RandomNumsandLetters t1_j5r35gu wrote

Don't kill stuff? Farming kills lots of tiny animals in the ground, why is it OK?

2

TarantinoFan23 t1_j5r625c wrote

Its only partly okay,for now. If you appreciate their sacrifice, don't treat them poorly, and strive to create a better world without the need to subsist on other beings.

Edit: The people we eat for food today, will hopefully see they were an essential part of making the world a better place for whatever family they have left(that we didn't eat).

1

swampshark19 t1_j5qitze wrote

If there was a person who does not experience any form of pain, meaning they do not suffer, by your conditions it would be justifiable to kill them.

2

JonBonFucki t1_j5t2fh0 wrote

don't forget the fact that pain and suffering as we understand them cannot continue past death so technically anyone suffering in pain can have their life improved by killing them.

1

token-black-dude t1_j5q5vvj wrote

> I believe my treatment of other organisms should be determined by that organism’s capacity to suffer from whatever action I am taking against it and whether that action is necessary.

I don't think this a reasonable or practical perspective. I care more about one of my kids scraping his knee, than the death of a starving child on the other side of the world, and even if they do not admit it when asked, so does everybody else, who do nothing while our society perpetuates a situation where we let starving children die. We as a society are certainly not treating people or animals according to their capacity for suffering.

1

tjscobbie t1_j5sth8z wrote

You care more because evolution has saddled you with a half-baked, if any, morality. The whole reason we do philosophy and have these discussions is to transcend what we arbitrarily feel.

0

Peacedude95 t1_j5suz43 wrote

This really highlights the problem with a utilitarian approach to morality. It is not practically possible to even measure the suffering of every person influenced by a single choice. We tend to restrict the individuals we consider when making a moral choic3 to make it manageable

3