• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -11 year ago

    if you’re looking for arbitrary, the anthropocentrists are that way

    this is just a tu quoque

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      I explained why it’s not arbitrary, then pointed to a group that does draw arbitrary distinctions. That’s not tu quoque because I’m not saying “you also”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        you’re saying it’s not arbitrary. “no, you” is still a form of tu quoque. you haven’t actually made a case that sentience isnt an arbitrary standard, and there isn’t a case to be made: sentience isn’t a natural phenomenon outside of human subjective classification. without people, there would be no concept of green or warm or sentient, and any of those attributes is an arbitrary standard to use to judge the ethics of a diet.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          Are you saying everything we can talk about is arbitrary because everything we can talk about is with words and concepts?

          Are you talking about meriological nihilism? (thanks alex oconnor for teaching me that term lol)

          I know sentience is real based on the fact that I’m experiencing things right this moment. Based on my understanding of the brain and nervous system, and the strong evidence that those things give rise to my sentience, I think that it’s reasonable to extrapolate that other, similar nervous systems/brains are also sentient and their experience is worth consideration in a similar way to how I consider my own experience (among the many other reasons to have a basic level of empathy)

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            why sentience and not DNA? or literally any other characteristic? your standard is absolutely arbitrary.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              Based on my understanding of the brain and nervous system, and the strong evidence that those things give rise to my sentience, I think that it’s reasonable to extrapolate that other, similar nervous systems/brains are also sentient and their experience is worth consideration in a similar way to how I consider my own experience (among the many other reasons to have a basic level of empathy)

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                the same can be said of DNA. this is a completely arbitrary standard, and you would be better served to embrace that than pretending it’s somehow objective.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not saying it is objective, I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.

                  If my dna was isolated in a test tube and it could experience things then I would also care about what it experiences. There isn’t any evidence I’m aware of that that’s the case. Dna is the instructions and tool to build the sentient being, not the sentient being itself. So no, the same couldn’t be said of dna. Extrapolating from how much I care about what I experience, I think it’s reasonable to care about what things that experience things experience

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    I’m not saying it is objective, I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.

                    this can’t be true. it’s self-contradictory.