You are using the Dark Arts. Dogs are not parasitic microorganisms. Marshall did not specify the function that maps organisms into appropriate levels of compassion. His statement does not imply the absurdity you are trying to reduce it to.
It’s pretty clear-cut. Bacteria are living things, therefore compassion for all living things implies compassion for bacteria. If it’s appropriate to feel compassion for dogs but not bacteria, the property that makes it so is not life, but something else.
It’s pretty clear-cut. He spoke of showing a particular level of compassion to a dog. He also spoke of showing some compassion to all living things. He did not say to show the same level of compassion to all living things. I believe you fail to understand that your argument is not logical because you are thinking in terms of binary distinctions. Your mention of that “the property that makes it so” demonstrates this.
You’re still thinking in binary terms. Zero or non-zero is a distinction that can be made arbitrarily useless.
If someone said that they wanted everyone in the world to have shoes, you would not assume that they also wanted people with no feet to have shoes. If a bacteria qualitatively lacks the feelings that are necessary for you to feel compassion for them, you assume they are not included.
If the universe were colonized by nothing but bacteria, I would not sterilize it, even if that bacteria could never evolve into anything else.
You are using the Dark Arts. Dogs are not parasitic microorganisms. Marshall did not specify the function that maps organisms into appropriate levels of compassion. His statement does not imply the absurdity you are trying to reduce it to.
It’s pretty clear-cut. Bacteria are living things, therefore compassion for all living things implies compassion for bacteria. If it’s appropriate to feel compassion for dogs but not bacteria, the property that makes it so is not life, but something else.
It’s pretty clear-cut. He spoke of showing a particular level of compassion to a dog. He also spoke of showing some compassion to all living things. He did not say to show the same level of compassion to all living things. I believe you fail to understand that your argument is not logical because you are thinking in terms of binary distinctions. Your mention of that “the property that makes it so” demonstrates this.
Zero or nonzero is a binary distinction. Do you disagree that it’s appropriate to feel zero compassion for bacteria?
You’re still thinking in binary terms. Zero or non-zero is a distinction that can be made arbitrarily useless.
If someone said that they wanted everyone in the world to have shoes, you would not assume that they also wanted people with no feet to have shoes. If a bacteria qualitatively lacks the feelings that are necessary for you to feel compassion for them, you assume they are not included.
If the universe were colonized by nothing but bacteria, I would not sterilize it, even if that bacteria could never evolve into anything else.
Your use of “parasitic” is also Dark: it serves no purpose other than to trigger the negative emotional associations of the word.
I used the word parasitic because he gave, as his example, a specific parasitic organism.