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?
name the trait is a fallacious line of argument because it falls prey to the linedrawing fallacy.
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?
name the trait is a fallacious line of argument because it falls prey to the linedrawing fallacy.