Comment on Why is the consumption of Meat considered bad
NeuralNerd@lemmy.world 1 year agoyou can’t prove plants aren’t sentient.
And you can’t prove something is sentient. But scientists have criteria that help determine whether a species is sentient. See this review for example.
even if you could, why should sentience matter?
I already answered. If something can’t be harmed there no need to prevent harming it.
what ethical system even accounts for sentience as a factor of right behavior?
About all animal welfare:
Respect for animal welfare is often based on the belief that nonhuman animals are sentient and that consideration should be given to their well-being or suffering, especially when they are under the care of humans.[4]
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
i don’t really like your use of harm here to exclude everything but sentient beings, but as a term of art, for the purposes of this discussion, i will indulge you.
why does it matter if something CAN be harmed? what creates a duty to NOT HARM something?
NeuralNerd@lemmy.world 1 year ago
About all ethics is about reducing harm. If you don’t know that harming is bad I don’t think we can have a discussion.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
deontological ethics are explicitly not about that. divine command theory is unconcerned with that. can you name an ethical system that does concern itself with that?
NeuralNerd@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I guess it depends on the philosopher, but at least one includes “doing no harm” in the obligations[1]:
Probably all consequentialism and at least utilitarianism (harm decreases the global well being). Negative consequentialism is more specifically focused on reducing suffering/harm.