Well presumably because they’re not equating “moral patienthood” with “object of my personal caring”.
Something can be a moral patient, who you care about to the extent you’re compelled by moral claims, or who’s rights you are deontologically prohibited from trampling on, without your caring about that being in particular.
You might make the claim that calling something a moral patient is the same as saying that you care (at least a little bit) about its wellbeing, but not everyone buys that calim.
your close circle is not more conscious or more sentient than people far away, but you care about your close circle more anyways
Or, more specifically, this is a non-sequitor to my deonotology, which holds regardless of whether I personally like or privately wish for the wellbeing of any particular entity.
Well presumably because they’re not equating “moral patienthood” with “object of my personal caring”.
Something can be a moral patient, who you care about to the extent you’re compelled by moral claims, or who’s rights you are deontologically prohibited from trampling on, without your caring about that being in particular.
You might make the claim that calling something a moral patient is the same as saying that you care (at least a little bit) about its wellbeing, but not everyone buys that calim.
Or, more specifically, this is a non-sequitor to my deonotology, which holds regardless of whether I personally like or privately wish for the wellbeing of any particular entity.