Comment on Why is the consumption of Meat considered bad
NeuralNerd@lemmy.world 11 months agodeontological 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.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months 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.
NeuralNerd@lemmy.world 11 months ago
So in your ethical theory, harm doesn’t matter at all?
You seem to follow some kind of deontology. There’s no obligation in your system to not cause unnecessary harm? I guess you have some obligation not to hurt your dog even if you like doing that. Isn’t that obligation related to the fact the dog would be harmed if you did?
Maybe it’s just a difference between consequentialism and deontologism, but I was convinced deontologists generally had some rules that prevent unnecessary harm. They don’t?
There’s at least Tom Regan who was a deontologist (at least in his book The Case for Animal Rights) and talks about harm:
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
I take a view pretty close to kant: cruelty is wrong to practice on other creatures or on people, but for different reasons. it’s inherently wrong to be cruel to people, but being cruel to animals is only wrong In that it conditions you to practice cruelty, and you might subsiquently be cruel to people