I'm cool with using "morality" and "ethics" in this way, and in fact, did so for years, until (I think) I started running into the "2 point vs 5 point system of morality" thing.
And yes, your point about reason having primacy is why I think that "religion means doing what you're told regardless of what is right" is not a fair generalization. (This actually gets back to the five point system of morality (meaning ethics in this case) under "enforce submission to authority"--conservatives generally consider this part of ethical behavior, liberals don't; I don't, hence the alignment here.)
Trying to alleviate the suffering of animals is going to get you into a real can of worms, of course. Alleviating the suffering of domestic animals is comparatively easy (and one can make a real case we have more responsibility to relive suffering resulting from our actions than to relieve suffering we didn't cause) so I think it's reasonable that people tend to concentrate on that. But really, once one starts considering the suffering of, say, cottontails, as being as important as the suffering of, say, kindergarteners, what do we do? Do we keep wolves from chasing them, mauling and killing them? We would certainly defend, uh, "feral kindergarteners"(oxymoron alert) from wolves. But then what about the poor starving wolves? Going hungry is suffering too.
And at what point does an animal become simple enough that we don't need to care anymore? (2nd can of worms) Do we worry about the suffering of mice? Slugs? Amoebae? Do slime molds count as animals? What about yeast? Bacteria?
Anyway, I guess I'm seriously digressing. Sorry. While I'm bringing up issues I see with the ideas you mentioned, I don't want to suggest that I think you shouldn't mention them or anything.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-06-30 01:52 pm (UTC)And yes, your point about reason having primacy is why I think that "religion means doing what you're told regardless of what is right" is not a fair generalization. (This actually gets back to the five point system of morality (meaning ethics in this case) under "enforce submission to authority"--conservatives generally consider this part of ethical behavior, liberals don't; I don't, hence the alignment here.)
Trying to alleviate the suffering of animals is going to get you into a real can of worms, of course. Alleviating the suffering of domestic animals is comparatively easy (and one can make a real case we have more responsibility to relive suffering resulting from our actions than to relieve suffering we didn't cause) so I think it's reasonable that people tend to concentrate on that. But really, once one starts considering the suffering of, say, cottontails, as being as important as the suffering of, say, kindergarteners, what do we do? Do we keep wolves from chasing them, mauling and killing them? We would certainly defend, uh, "feral kindergarteners"(oxymoron alert) from wolves. But then what about the poor starving wolves? Going hungry is suffering too.
And at what point does an animal become simple enough that we don't need to care anymore? (2nd can of worms) Do we worry about the suffering of mice? Slugs? Amoebae? Do slime molds count as animals? What about yeast? Bacteria?
Anyway, I guess I'm seriously digressing. Sorry. While I'm bringing up issues I see with the ideas you mentioned, I don't want to suggest that I think you shouldn't mention them or anything.