Descriptively true, but some argument needs to be made to show that our terminal values never require us to consider any alien’s preferences.
I don’t think the argument is that. It’s more like our terminal values never require us to consider a preference an alien has that is radically opposed to important human values. If we came across an alien race that, due to parallel evolution, has values that coincide with human values in all important ways, we would be just as obligated to respect their preferences as we would those of a human. If we ran across an alien race whose values were similar in most respects, but occasionally differed in a few important ways, we would be required to respect their preferences most of the time, but not when they were expressing one of those totally inhuman values.
In regard to animal cruelty, “not being in pain” is a value both humans and animals have in common, so it seems like it would be a terminal value to respect it.
It’s more like our terminal values never require us to consider a preference an alien has that is radically opposed to important human values.
That’s certainly how we behave. But is it true? Why?
Edit: If your answer is “Terminal value conflicts are intractable,” I agree. But that answer suggests certain consequences in how society should be organized, and yet modern society does not really address actual value conflicts with “Purge it with fire.”
Also, the word values in the phrases “human values” and “animal values” does not mean the same thing in common usage. Conventional wisdom holds that terminal values are not something that non-human animals have—connotatively if not denotatively.
Edit: If your answer is “Terminal value conflicts are intractable,” I agree. But that answer suggests certain consequences in how society should be organized, and yet modern society does not really address actual value conflicts with “Purge it with fire.”
I think I might believe that such conflicts are intractable. The reason that society generally doesn’t flat-out kill people with totally alien values is that such people are rare-to-nonexistant. Humans who are incurably sociopathic could be regarded as creatures with alien values, providing their sociopathy is egosyntonic. We do often permanently lock up or execute such people.
Also, the word values in the phrases “human values” and “animal values” does not mean the same thing in common usage
You might be right, if you define “value” as “a terminal goal that a consequentialist creature has” and believe most animals do not have enough brainpower to be consequentialists. If this is the case I think that animal cruelty laws are an probably an expression of the human value that creatures not be in pain
Descriptively true, but some argument needs to be made to show that our terminal values never require us to consider any alien’s preferences.
Preferably, this argument would also address whether animal cruelty laws are justified by terminal values or instrumental values.
I don’t think the argument is that. It’s more like our terminal values never require us to consider a preference an alien has that is radically opposed to important human values. If we came across an alien race that, due to parallel evolution, has values that coincide with human values in all important ways, we would be just as obligated to respect their preferences as we would those of a human. If we ran across an alien race whose values were similar in most respects, but occasionally differed in a few important ways, we would be required to respect their preferences most of the time, but not when they were expressing one of those totally inhuman values.
In regard to animal cruelty, “not being in pain” is a value both humans and animals have in common, so it seems like it would be a terminal value to respect it.
That’s certainly how we behave. But is it true? Why?
Edit: If your answer is “Terminal value conflicts are intractable,” I agree. But that answer suggests certain consequences in how society should be organized, and yet modern society does not really address actual value conflicts with “Purge it with fire.”
Also, the word values in the phrases “human values” and “animal values” does not mean the same thing in common usage. Conventional wisdom holds that terminal values are not something that non-human animals have—connotatively if not denotatively.
I think I might believe that such conflicts are intractable. The reason that society generally doesn’t flat-out kill people with totally alien values is that such people are rare-to-nonexistant. Humans who are incurably sociopathic could be regarded as creatures with alien values, providing their sociopathy is egosyntonic. We do often permanently lock up or execute such people.
You might be right, if you define “value” as “a terminal goal that a consequentialist creature has” and believe most animals do not have enough brainpower to be consequentialists. If this is the case I think that animal cruelty laws are an probably an expression of the human value that creatures not be in pain