At very least, I conclude that we have no general reason to think that non-human animals feel pain less acutely than we do, and we should in any case give them the benefit of the doubt. Practices such as branding cattle, castration without anaesthetic, and bullfighting should be treated as morally equivalent to doing the same thing to human beings.
What—on the grounds that morality is all about universally reducing suffering? That seems to be a pretty daft premise to me.
A demographic examination of those involved suggests that animal rights campaigning appears to be largely to do with the signalling function of morality. Those who promote these ideas are the ones who want to signal what goody-two-shoes they are. It is a case of: see how much I care, I even care for whales.
People championing a cause for the wrong reasons does not make the cause itself invalid.
True. I don’t think there is anything “wrong” about wanting to be seen to be good, though. That goodness is attractive and that people like to be seen to be good is one of the great things about the world. Thank goodness for those fuzzies. We could be living in a much more evilicious environment.
I didn’t find that usage unnatural at all, considering that this website is about norms that can help people seek truth. The people that Kaj was talking about are violating the norms that we discuss here.
What—on the grounds that morality is all about universally reducing suffering? That seems to be a pretty daft premise to me.
A demographic examination of those involved suggests that animal rights campaigning appears to be largely to do with the signalling function of morality. Those who promote these ideas are the ones who want to signal what goody-two-shoes they are. It is a case of: see how much I care, I even care for whales.
People championing a cause for the wrong reasons does not make the cause itself invalid.
True. I don’t think there is anything “wrong” about wanting to be seen to be good, though. That goodness is attractive and that people like to be seen to be good is one of the great things about the world. Thank goodness for those fuzzies. We could be living in a much more evilicious environment.
Wrong as in not-truth-seeking. If we want to find good causes, this is the wrong evidence to use.
For me that would be quite a stretch. “Wrong” doesn’t have “not-truth-seeking” as a meaning in any dictionary I am familiar with.
I didn’t find that usage unnatural at all, considering that this website is about norms that can help people seek truth. The people that Kaj was talking about are violating the norms that we discuss here.
… as long as a right reason exists in the first place.