By claiming “I’m not a consequentialist” as a defense for paying to have a sentient being killed, you aren’t winning an intellectual debate; you are admitting that you have no consistent ethical standard. You are essentially saying, “I don’t have a moral framework that governs my choices; I have a list of convenient excuses.”
If you aren’t a Consequentialist, and your arguments against Deontology have failed, what is your moral framework? It appears to be moral relativism where the rules change whenever you need them to so that your lifestyle remains unassailable.
By claiming “I’m not a consequentialist” as a defense for paying to have a sentient being killed
that’s not what happened. i’ve never paid to have a sentient being killed (except my dog, but he was real old). but that aside, i said “i’m not a consequentialist, so consequentialist reasoning about what’s good or bad doesn’t apply to my actions.”
By claiming “I’m not a consequentialist” as a defense for paying to have a sentient being killed, you aren’t winning an intellectual debate; you are admitting that you have no consistent ethical standard. You are essentially saying, “I don’t have a moral framework that governs my choices; I have a list of convenient excuses.”
If you aren’t a Consequentialist, and your arguments against Deontology have failed, what is your moral framework? It appears to be moral relativism where the rules change whenever you need them to so that your lifestyle remains unassailable.
this is just a lack of reading comprehension on your part.
i’m arguing for deontology, but i’m also saying that the arguments that attempt to shoehorn animal rights into deontology are bullshit.
that’s not what happened. i’ve never paid to have a sentient being killed (except my dog, but he was real old). but that aside, i said “i’m not a consequentialist, so consequentialist reasoning about what’s good or bad doesn’t apply to my actions.”