Straha wrote:This isn't responsive to the argument. Of course the reasoning these people are using is bullshit. No one is saying otherwise. What I am saying is that your system of categorization makes this bullshit happen, again and again and again and that the only way to avoid this sort of bullshit is to abolish these categories.
Then you're left with a nonsensical system which cannot weigh utility according to intelligence, and the microorganism would get as much protection necessity as a human. That's really unreasonable.
Straha wrote:You're asking a different question and then a providing a (lackluster) answer to the new question. The question I posed is more nuanced, why is it good for us to have a category of beings who receive no ethical consideration or protection? Why is it good to create the category of 'non-being' beings?
Because wasting resources on protection of non-intelligent beings when intelligence beings still suffer is a preposterous idea. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand. The plant-hamster example was good enough.
Straha wrote:The baseline ethical claim I'm making is that we should strive to never infringe on the lives of other beings except through absolute necessity. That's something that's pretty easy to extend toward plants, and all sorts of other living creatures, and the Jains are proof that that sort of life is attainable (and have been proof of it for upwards of 2,000 years), and I see no downside to that.
There's no downward side to claiming that you cannot kill plants or insects, etc. without absolute necessity? What's the objective and universal definition absolute necessity? Tell me. I would want to know. Because otherwise we'd run into the argument that one person considers burning wood an absolute necessity, whereas the other will rather live in the woods without burning anything. And both will claim that their position is correct. Your system would not be able to make any distinction at all.
Straha wrote:A universalist system of ethics solves for that risk, and retains any benefit your system might have. In other words, a universalist system of ethics solves for everything bad with your system, while keeping everything good. In that world, why should we not embrace a universal system of ethics?
See above. Because it is not really "universalist" when it will come to infringement of plant rights. Because under your system a body with a dead brain in PVS state would get as much rights as a fully capable intelligent human with a non-damaged brain. Do you seriously see no problem with that?
Straha wrote:Yes. What's the impact of this?
As resources are scarce, this system will strive to distribute them in a non-discriminatory fashion (plants getting as much protection as animals, animals as much as people, brain-dead people as much as living minds - etc.). This would result in massive increase of suffering of intelligent beings, since their share of resources consumed will drastically drop. As they're the most capable of experiencing suffering, they will also feel it better than other beings and, being sentient, will revolt against such a system in a very short order.
Straha wrote:Moreover, any system which allows for the progressive inclusion of beings into its framework to correct previous oversights will also allow, by the flipside of the coin, for the progressive exclusion of beings to correct for their inclusion. The thought of allowing that possibility to exist is disturbing to the extreme. Rather than make ethical inclusion subject to the whim of majority consensus or the will of people with the greatest access to levers of power we ought protect everyone possible and minimize the amount of harm possible. That system means one which presupposes everyone is included.
That system won't survive for long. Seeing how resources would be wasted to protect beings which lack even higher nervous activity (say, single-cell organisms), it will collapse on itself immediately.
Straha wrote:As to your question, it's incredibly nebulous and vague and doesn't lend itself to any but the vaguest of answers, like "In such a way to minimize the suffering for all involved", but not only is that hardly satisfying it's no different than any other system offered could give for that. Do you have some specific examples/ideas you'd like to explore?
Yes. A person has a 50% chance of dying if he doesn't burn the tree next to his earth-pit. Does he have a right to do it? The tree has a 100% chance of dying if he does it and will survive if he does not. Your system's answer?
Straha wrote:A. You're not protecting intelligence. You're protecting intelligible species, which is to say you're not protecting intelligent creatures you're protecting creatures who can communicate any intelligence they might have in a way we can understand. There is all sorts of information about how dolphins, whales, great apes, birds, and so many more creatures have intelligent understanding of the world around them and can communicate that understanding to each other but in ways so alien to us that we cannot understand how this process happens. Why should we punish them for their failure to be able to communicate to us, or for our failure to understand?
The higher nervous activity of animals is explored sufficiently well to say that none of them possess the human level of intelligent and it is highly unlikely any are capable of abstract thinking on our level. But like I said, animals are at least capable of higher nervous activity. That puts them before plants. In your system, they have the same value as infusoria. So why would I care about killing a dolphin any more than I care about killing infusoria when I disinfect the surface of a road or ram a ship into a dolphin in the sea? Both have the same value.
Straha wrote:B. What are the problems you say the universalist system creates? You've referred to them vaguely a few times but you haven't pinned any down, while we've pointed out more than a few systemic harms with nasty impacts (genocide, war, slavery, etc.) with the consequentialist/utilitarian way of looking at the world.
See above. Your system would make humans equivalent to other lifeforms if it would be truly universal. The consequences of that would be horrific and cause an explosion of suffering on a magnitude unseen. For example, humans won't be able to kill animals or plants for food. They would have the same value. So what are they supposed to eat, if algae has same value as a human? You removed intelligence as a barrier down to the lowest level, and in your system nothing can justify the genocide of algae. By the way, should humans kill whales since they eat living beings? Should humans kill predators for the evil act of killing other living beings?
Straha wrote:If a microrganism is going to kill me I surely have the right to vaccinate myself against it/eradicate it from my body, just like if I know there's a person with a gun trying to kill me I have the right to harm them (and maybe even kill them) to prevent that.
What if you also have to eradicate the microorganism from a certain place? It might not necessarily 100% infect you, but you take the precaution even with a 1% chance of deadly infection. You kill it with no remorse. Genocide!
Straha wrote:Yes, this line is open to flexible understanding and negotiation and should probably be explored at some length, but what's the harm of enclosing them as well?
See above the tree-man example.
Straha wrote:(As an aside, your argument is remarkably analogous to the Gay Marriage debate in the States. 'If you give the gays the right to marry it'll devalue straight marriage!' and 'If you give animals rights it'll devalue human rights!' both follow the exact same logical train of thought. I'll gladly spot you that you have some more nuance to your argument, but this thought just occured to me at the end of this post and it's an interesting line of thought to explore.)
It is not even remotely close. Gay marriage does not waste any additional resources to implement. None. Nada nil. Not to mention that gays aren't less intelligent than straights, often moreso.
The criterion is not that it will "devalue human rights", it is that intelligence will get confused with biological life, making ethical choice downright impossible and resources will get wasted on non-intelligent organisms without any criteria.
Straha wrote:It's a stupid hypothetical scenario and I feel pretty comfortable asserting that nobody on this board will ever be in that position.
It is not stupid, Straha.
We kill billions of bacteria when we start up a nuclear plant. Should we stop starting up nuclear plants for the sake of billions of bacteria? That's not fucking hypothetical. Why do you hate bacteria so much you're willing to massacre them for electricity? Not to mention the grass, trees and many other things we murder - yes, even slaughter I would say - to build said powerplant.
The choice is made every day.