I'm not saying it is objective, I'm saying it's not arbitrary.
If my dna was isolated in a test tube and it could experience things then I would also care about what it experiences. There isn't any evidence I'm aware of that that's the case. Dna is the instructions and tool to build the sentient being, not the sentient being itself. So no, the same couldn't be said of dna. Extrapolating from how much I care about what I experience, I think it's reasonable to care about what things that experience things experience
I'm not saying it is objective, I'm saying it's not arbitrary.
this can't be true. it's self-contradictory.
ok, taboo the word arbitrary. What do you mean when you say arbitrary?
I mean there is no objective reason to set the standard at sentience any more than any other standard.
Then based on the way you are using arbitrary, I see why you think my position is arbitrary. Do you think all positions are arbitrary?
all subjective opinions, like ethics or aesthetics, are.
Once you go to a deep enough layer I think you're right. But, the one subjective thing my argument rests on is that you care about your own experience. Anyone who flinches away from touching a hot stove because it hurts cares about their experience at least a little. The next step is recognizing that from an objective view, there's no reason to think your subjective experience is any more important than anyone elses (subjectively there is).
we are going to, once again, disagree on the relevant definition of "anyone".
That seems to bother you. Let's taboo the word. When I say "someone", "anyone", "person", etc, I'm referring to a sentient being, a subject of experience, an experiencer, one who is experiencing. Now you can interpret what I'm saying better, do you disagree with the actual points I'm making?
yes, I do: sentience is too broad a category, and not actually relevant to most people. if we are talking about people, then all of your statements are fine. but I don't agree that these axioms are or should be applicable to, say, mosquitos . or mice. or dogs or cats. or fish. or livestock.
Why is sentience too broad? afaik all humans are sentient, otherwise we'd be philosophical zombies (or there would be p-zombies among us)
it's too broad because it includes mosquitoes and mice and dogs and cats and fish and livestock. most people don't treat them the same way. most ethical systems don't treat them the same way. My ethical system doesn't treat them the same way. so I do not agree that it's okay to write an axiom about how you're supposed to treat sentient beings. treating people better than animals is a good thing.
are your ethical views based on what most people have done historically? Or how most ethical systems view something? What is your ethical system?
what is/are the difference(s) between human and non-human animals that justifies treating humans better than non-humans?
Hell even to get past solipsism you have to subjectively assume to that your mind and senses accurately reflect the world at least a little bit, otherwise gathering any accurate data or reasoning about that data productively would not be possible
I'm not saying it is objective, I'm saying it's not arbitrary.
If my dna was isolated in a test tube and it could experience things then I would also care about what it experiences. There isn't any evidence I'm aware of that that's the case. Dna is the instructions and tool to build the sentient being, not the sentient being itself. So no, the same couldn't be said of dna. Extrapolating from how much I care about what I experience, I think it's reasonable to care about what things that experience things experience
this can't be true. it's self-contradictory.
ok, taboo the word arbitrary. What do you mean when you say arbitrary?
I mean there is no objective reason to set the standard at sentience any more than any other standard.
Then based on the way you are using arbitrary, I see why you think my position is arbitrary. Do you think all positions are arbitrary?
all subjective opinions, like ethics or aesthetics, are.
Once you go to a deep enough layer I think you're right. But, the one subjective thing my argument rests on is that you care about your own experience. Anyone who flinches away from touching a hot stove because it hurts cares about their experience at least a little. The next step is recognizing that from an objective view, there's no reason to think your subjective experience is any more important than anyone elses (subjectively there is).
we are going to, once again, disagree on the relevant definition of "anyone".
That seems to bother you. Let's taboo the word. When I say "someone", "anyone", "person", etc, I'm referring to a sentient being, a subject of experience, an experiencer, one who is experiencing. Now you can interpret what I'm saying better, do you disagree with the actual points I'm making?
yes, I do: sentience is too broad a category, and not actually relevant to most people. if we are talking about people, then all of your statements are fine. but I don't agree that these axioms are or should be applicable to, say, mosquitos . or mice. or dogs or cats. or fish. or livestock.
Why is sentience too broad? afaik all humans are sentient, otherwise we'd be philosophical zombies (or there would be p-zombies among us)
it's too broad because it includes mosquitoes and mice and dogs and cats and fish and livestock. most people don't treat them the same way. most ethical systems don't treat them the same way. My ethical system doesn't treat them the same way. so I do not agree that it's okay to write an axiom about how you're supposed to treat sentient beings. treating people better than animals is a good thing.
are your ethical views based on what most people have done historically? Or how most ethical systems view something? What is your ethical system?
what is/are the difference(s) between human and non-human animals that justifies treating humans better than non-humans?
Hell even to get past solipsism you have to subjectively assume to that your mind and senses accurately reflect the world at least a little bit, otherwise gathering any accurate data or reasoning about that data productively would not be possible
right....