Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
on the contrary. i'm making avowed consequentialists responsible for all possible future events. they need to bite the bullet on that to remain consequentialists. since i'm not a consequentialist, it has no bearing on me.
By claiming "I’m not a consequentialist" as a defense for paying to have a sentient being killed, you aren't winning an intellectual debate; you are admitting that you have no consistent ethical standard. You are essentially saying, "I don’t have a moral framework that governs my choices; I have a list of convenient excuses."
If you aren't a Consequentialist, and your arguments against Deontology have failed, what is your moral framework? It appears to be moral relativism where the rules change whenever you need them to so that your lifestyle remains unassailable.
i'm arguing for deontology, but i'm also saying that the arguments that attempt to shoehorn animal rights into deontology are bullshit.
Ok so if you are arguing for Deontology, a core pillar of Deontology (Kantian ethics) is that you must never treat a being with inherent value purely as a means to an end.
By asserting that animals don't belong in this framework, you are arguing that because animals lack human-level rational agency, they have zero inherent value and can be treated strictly as commodities, tools, or resources for human pleasure.
You aren't protecting the integrity of Deontology; you are just drawing an arbitrary line at the human species boundary so you can enjoy eating meat without violating your personal rules.
this is just a lack of reading comprehension on your part.
You seem to be a deontologist who draws a rigid moral boundary at the edge of the human species. You believe that because animals lack human-level rational agency, we owe them no direct moral duties. Is that correct?
pretty close, and a far cry from your last comment.
that's not what happened. i've never paid to have a sentient being killed (except my dog, but he was real old). but that aside, i said "i'm not a consequentialist, so consequentialist reasoning about what's good or bad doesn't apply to my actions."
Declaring "I’m not a consequentialist, so consequentialist reasoning doesn’t apply to me" is exactly like a thief saying, "I don't subscribe to the concept of property rights, so your ethical reasoning about stealing doesn't apply to my actions."
Moral frameworks evaluate the objective reality of actions and their victims. Your arguments have collapsed into "I didn't do it" and "the rules don't apply to me" which is either low effort trolling or low effort reasoning.