Comment on Why is the consumption of Meat considered bad
NeuralNerd@lemmy.world 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months 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.