Who deserves moral consideration?

Why does any given being deserve any kind of moral consideration in your opinion?

I'm assuming you would treat a tree differently from a cow differently from a human, what is the logical rational behind that?

This isn't really a debate prompt, I'm only curious about your individual approaches to this question.

[Scott]

Define moral consideration.

Define moral consideration.

When something is given moral consideration, it is deserving of having its welfare considered when making ethical decisions and resolving ethical dilemmas. The consideration is presumably given by the considerer and maker of the previously mentioned decisions. A thing can be given more or less consideration (or weight if you will) when making a decision.

(I didn't know how to phrase it, so I searched and the only workable definition that was presented to me was on a different philosophy forum from a post seven years old...)

Sentience is "what matters". Only hedonic states can be said to be intrinsically good or bad.

Sentience is "what matters". Only hedonic states can be said to be intrinsically good or bad.

Would you say that an unconscious (normally sentient) being is no longer sentient for that time period?

[Scott]

Define moral consideration.

When something is given moral consideration, it is deserving of having its welfare considered when making ethical decisions and resolving ethical dilemmas.

What does it mean for something to deserve to have its welfare considered when making ethical decisions and resolving ethical dilemmas? Namely, it's the words deserve[/i and [i]ethical that I think need to be defined. For instance, what's the difference between an ethical decision and a non-ethical (by this I do not mean unethical) one? I'm not really interested in some other person's definition or what a dictionary says or even what you think is the common meaning of these words because it is my position that in terms of the general lexicon these moral/ethical terms are very equivocal. Rather, I'm interested in what you meant when you said them in the previous posts.

The consideration is presumably given by the considerer and maker of the previously mentioned decisions.

So this is a subjective quality?

Sentience is "what matters". Only hedonic states can be said to be intrinsically good or bad.

Would you say that an unconscious (normally sentient) being is no longer sentient for that time period?

I guess, but that's just semantics.

Sentience is "what matters". Only hedonic states can be said to be intrinsically good or bad.

Would you say that an unconscious (normally sentient) being is no longer sentient for that time period?

I guess, but that's just semantics.

So my next question, why do you believe that sentience is relevant?

Without sentience, there's no point of view. Things can only be good / bad *for* something experiencing it. Suffering is intrinsically awful by its very nature, that's an axiological truth. A world with less suffering is a better world.

Why does any given being deserve any kind of moral consideration in your opinion?

I'm assuming you would treat a tree differently from a cow differently from a human, what is the logical rational behind that?

This isn't really a debate prompt, I'm only curious about your individual approaches to this question.

I think that humanities made a mistake in how it treats animals. Because it would cost less money and resources to put animals asleep peacefully instead of causing them a horrifying death. All that would be needed is carbon monoxide basically which would require some gasoline. Also that would save companies cash because they wouldn't need slaughter houses anymore. So theres not really any reason imo to not use carbonmonoxide.

Without sentience, there's no point of view. Things can only be good / bad *for* something experiencing it. Suffering is intrinsically awful by its very nature, that's an axiological truth. A world with less suffering is a better world.

That makes sense. One last question? Do you think suffering or (painless) death is worse?

What does it mean for something to deserve to have its welfare considered when making ethical decisions and resolving ethical dilemmas? Namely, it's the words deserve[/i and ethical that I think need to be defined. For instance, what's the difference between an ethical decision and a non-ethical (by this I do not mean unethical) one? I'm not really interested in some other person's definition or what a dictionary says or even what you think is the common meaning of these words because it is my position that in terms of the general lexicon these moral/ethical terms are very equivocal. Rather, I'm interested in what you meant when you said them in the previous posts.

In my definition? By ethical I meant: "a decision which has a moral obligation to choose one way over another". By deserve I meant something like "compelled to be given". e.g. The correct ethical framework implies that an actor is compelled to give certain things moral consideration.

I'm not really sure why your asking this, and therefor what kind of answer you're looking for, so I hope that helped.

So this is a subjective quality?

Moral consideration? I guess you could say that people assign it in different ways. The question was when does something [i]deserve moral consideration, implying that there is a right way to assign it. Which way is right (and whether or not there is a right way I guess) is left up to you, the person answering the question.

Carbon monoxide exposure induces a slow peaceful sleep which leads to a death which is much less painful and horrifying.

That makes sense. One last question? Do you think suffering or (painless) death is worse?

I don't think death is intrinsically bad. It's bad when people are afraid of it, or when it isn't painless, or when it leads to sadness and so on. But if someone killed me painlessly without me noticing, I wouldn't be here anymore to complain... I don't think non existence is problematic. So I also deny that there exists an ethical obligation to bring happy beings into the world, which would have quite counterintuitive implications: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/

I think those beings that exist should live a life that goes as well as possible, but if they cease to exist, then that's fine too. So I'm tending towards negative utilitarianism.