[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Striking a blow against the predatory guilds

Raptorial Talon <raptorialtalon@gmail.com> wrote:

> 4. In terms of choosing courses of action, using (subjective,
> evolutionarily incidental) human psychology as a substitute for mutual
> agreement with other animals presumes that all other animals would
> inherently prefer to follow the dictates of human psychology if given
> the chance
> 5. Even humans frequently disagree with the subjective psychology of
> fellow humans, a) meaning that human values are no absolute, universal
> standard upon which to base the treatment any and all humans, much
> less any and all animals, and b) rendering any claim of
> absolutism-via-logical-deduction baseless insofar as values are,
> inherently, subjective, just like all human perceptions and
> motivations.
> If imposing drastic actions on humans who
> disagree with said actions is morally questionable, then imposing
> drastic actions on animals who have no voice or opportunity to even
> signal disagreement must surely be questionable as well.
Ok., so if I get you right, you treated the impossibility of animals
to share our morality not to defend them from those wanting
punishment, but to claim they are outside of a moral system if defined
as a the result of an agreement. I agree with that. However, the idea
of morality put forward by those who want to universally diminish the
pain is actually an absolutist one, and it seems to me we cannot
criticize them in moral terms on the basis of not fitting an idea of
morality based on the result of an agreement (which seems to lead to
relativism, at least for an ignorant like me) because the basis of the
absolutist morality lies elsewhere (it is, in the assumption of the
existence of some true good and true evil).