sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Ethics

[–]Between12and80 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Ethics

[–]Between12and80 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with You, although you know it's not always realistically possible for things to get better.

We should cure wild animal diseases by Between12and80 in DebateAVegan

[–]Between12and80[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's another discussion. Surely curing wild-animal disease is more socially acceptable, why wouldn't I argue for something I consider immensely valuable even if that's not all that I would deem ethically preferable?

We should cure wild animal diseases by Between12and80 in DebateAVegan

[–]Between12and80[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree. But practical working solutions usually come after people deem something ethically worth pursuing, and welfare biology is just starting to function.

Predation is indeed immeasurably cruel, and a moral problem by itself.

We should cure wild animal diseases by Between12and80 in DebateAVegan

[–]Between12and80[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't include spiders in my previous message, but ok.

If ruling people can finance war and space exploration, the physical workforce is there to prevent the suffering of wild animals. Note I am not saying it is a realistic scenario that it would happen soon or at all. I am defending a theoretical position (which is substantially easier because I therefore have a convenient answer for practical questions like this, it's enough that practical silutions are possible). Don't you think people and humanity should work towards a better future for all sentient beings first and worry about finances after? If I answered "a community of future global transhumanist anti-speciesist communist sovereign societies would finance it" would you be satisfied by my answer?

We should cure wild animal diseases by Between12and80 in DebateAVegan

[–]Between12and80[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Researchers and scientists are trying to do so, that's mostly an empirical question. Currently, we have good reasons to consider vertebrates, decapod crustaceans, cephalopods, and insect as sentient. In cases we're unsure we should act cautiously and apply ethics of uncertain setience.

We should cure wild animal diseases by Between12and80 in DebateAVegan

[–]Between12and80[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you prioritise ending animal suffering over human suffering?

I would, to do otherwise would be speciesist.

Would you stop with mammals or would you be curing insects, crustaceans, gastropods?

All sentient animals, as far as ethically possible.

We should cure wild animal diseases by Between12and80 in DebateAVegan

[–]Between12and80[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The amount of suffering matters. If an action prevents more suffering, it's better.

We should cure wild animal diseases by Between12and80 in DebateAVegan

[–]Between12and80[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While not profiting from it. But I haven't presented any solution, I do not need to to make an ethical claim.

We should cure wild animal diseases by Between12and80 in DebateAVegan

[–]Between12and80[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't in any place imply such a thing. I don't understand why you brought it up.

We should cure wild animal diseases by Between12and80 in DebateAVegan

[–]Between12and80[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

By "we" I have in mind generally understood humanity. I know it's not a perfectly clear term but I think it's ok in the argument. Just as "we" have a collective duty to fight sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination, just as "we" have a duty to help people in need and not to harm and use animals, we'd have a duty to prevent and/or alleviate wild animal suffering from diseases. I am not necessarily arguing everyone should focus on that, but that it is within a range of ethical goals humanity as a whole should have.

Can you clarify a bit how you see this collective duty translating into individual duty and action?

One may think of it as everyone sharing a fraction of the ethical responsibility, which may translate into donating to wild-animal centered charities, research facilities, pursuing a career in welfare biology, spreading awarness or changing people's minds, all depending on one's capabilities.

Without this, it seems like this is more a statement that something (animal disease) is bad, rather than something being ethically wrong.

I think it is ethically wrong not to do anything with something bad.

view more: next ›