Comment

Comment on Why is the consumption of Meat considered bad

If something can’t be harmed there no need to prevent harming it.

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?

source

Sort:hotnew top

NeuralNerd@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

what creates a duty to NOT HARM something?

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.

source
- 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?
  
  source
  - NeuralNerd@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    deontological ethics are explicitly not about that.
    
    I guess it depends on the philosopher, but at least one includes “doing no harm” in the obligations[1]:
    
    Ross [20] modified Kant’s deontology, allowing a plurality of duty-based ethical principles, such as doing no harm, promise keeping, etc.
    
    can you name an ethical system that does concern itself with that?
    
    Probably all consequentialism and at least utilitarianism (harm decreases the global well being). Negative consequentialism is more specifically focused on reducing suffering/harm.
    
    source
    commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I’m not a consequentialist at all, and Ross is not using harm in the same sense as we are. even if he were, his is not a very common strain of ethics.
    
    your ethical theory seems to be on dubious footing to me.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments