You are relying on a massive Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
Immanuel Kant lived 200 years ago. He also lived in an era where mainstream philosophical thought routinely excluded women and non-white races from full moral consideration. Does the fact that human rights and feminism “fly in the face of historical 18th-century thought” mean they lack entrenchment? No. It means humanity evolved, our scientific understanding of biology and consciousness evolved, and our ethical frameworks were updated to fix historical blind spots.
Deontology is a logical framework, not a 200-year-old religious dogma where we are forced to worship Kant’s 18th-century biological ignorance. Korsgaard and Regan didn’t invent a ‘novel’ system; they took the core deontological rule (do not use a conscious subject merely as a means to an end) and applied it accurately using modern science.
But more importantly, you are hiding behind a history of philosophy lesson to avoid answering the actual argument.
Does the fact that human rights and feminism “fly in the face of historical 18th-century thought” mean they lack entrenchment? No.
today, they are well-entrenched. and it’s possible animal rights will eventually gain the same entrenchment. but, at the moment, they are not entrenched, and i predict that they will be excised from deontological thought in the next century.
You are now moving from logical argument to prophecy. Predicting what will happen in the next century is not a rebuttal to the arguments being made today.
Whether or not animal rights will be ‘excised’ from deontology in 100 years is irrelevant to the question of whether it is morally right to slaughter sentient beings for sensory pleasure right now.
You’re using this prediction as a shield to avoid the present-day reality of your actions. It’s a convenient coincidence that your ‘prediction’ perfectly aligns with your personal desire to keep eating meat.
Whether or not animal rights will be ‘excised’ from deontology in 100 years is irrelevant to the question of whether it is morally right to slaughter sentient beings for sensory pleasure right now.
Whether you find an argument ‘compelling’ is subjective. Whether an argument is logically consistent is objective, and your position hasn’t been.
You’ve spent this entire conversation moving the goalposts, dodging every direct analogy (the vaccines, the construction accidents, the hitman), and denying the basic math of supply chains, all to defend the idea that intentional slaughter is morally identical to accidental death.
When you can no longer refute the logic, dismissing the explanation is a common way to exit the conversation, but it doesn’t resolve the contradictions you’ve failed to address.
You are relying on a massive Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
Immanuel Kant lived 200 years ago. He also lived in an era where mainstream philosophical thought routinely excluded women and non-white races from full moral consideration. Does the fact that human rights and feminism “fly in the face of historical 18th-century thought” mean they lack entrenchment? No. It means humanity evolved, our scientific understanding of biology and consciousness evolved, and our ethical frameworks were updated to fix historical blind spots.
Deontology is a logical framework, not a 200-year-old religious dogma where we are forced to worship Kant’s 18th-century biological ignorance. Korsgaard and Regan didn’t invent a ‘novel’ system; they took the core deontological rule (do not use a conscious subject merely as a means to an end) and applied it accurately using modern science.
But more importantly, you are hiding behind a history of philosophy lesson to avoid answering the actual argument.
today, they are well-entrenched. and it’s possible animal rights will eventually gain the same entrenchment. but, at the moment, they are not entrenched, and i predict that they will be excised from deontological thought in the next century.
You are now moving from logical argument to prophecy. Predicting what will happen in the next century is not a rebuttal to the arguments being made today.
Whether or not animal rights will be ‘excised’ from deontology in 100 years is irrelevant to the question of whether it is morally right to slaughter sentient beings for sensory pleasure right now.
You’re using this prediction as a shield to avoid the present-day reality of your actions. It’s a convenient coincidence that your ‘prediction’ perfectly aligns with your personal desire to keep eating meat.
you’re jumping to conclusions
you’re right.
sure. do you want to argue that it’s not?
this isn’t the first time i’ve encountered korsgaard, and i don’t find your retelling any more compelling than the first time.
Whether you find an argument ‘compelling’ is subjective. Whether an argument is logically consistent is objective, and your position hasn’t been.
You’ve spent this entire conversation moving the goalposts, dodging every direct analogy (the vaccines, the construction accidents, the hitman), and denying the basic math of supply chains, all to defend the idea that intentional slaughter is morally identical to accidental death.
When you can no longer refute the logic, dismissing the explanation is a common way to exit the conversation, but it doesn’t resolve the contradictions you’ve failed to address.
that didn’t happen
this is an oversimplification. a strawman.
i haven’t actually made an argument. i’m objecting to your argument.
debunking isn’t dodging.