• oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I don’t claim to 100% live in an ideal way. I try to keep improving but I don’t think I’ll ever be perfect

    i think in cases where consent is difficult or impossible to achieve, we should act in the best interest of the experiencer in question. But I think that example is a tough one, at first glance I think we shouldn’t sterilize them, but then when I consider what will almost certainly happen if they’re not sterilized I think it’s probably worth doing the one bad thing to prevent worse things from happening. It’s an example where I think a utilitarian approach makes the most sense, since the variables are relatively clear

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      and a bible believing Christian has a clear answer: it doesn’t matter, you have dominion, do what you want. I imagine you don’t like that reasoning, but it, to, gives clear guidance on the morality.

      I’m not talking about whether you live your values, I’m suggesting you don’t understand the implications of your own values, and under scrutiny you would find them internally inconsistent.

      which is fine, as long as you’re not going out and telling others the right thing to do.

      • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        i think I do understand them, I’ve thought about that problem before. Can you go into more detail on what you mean by internally inconsistent? By my understanding, situations in the world can come about where values need to be weighed, or there are only bad choices available, but that doesn’t mean those values should be discarded or replaced or that they shouldn’t be shared/spread.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          either it’s true that you can write an axiom that says “sentient beings should always consent to anything that is done to them” or you can write an axiom that says “you should always do what will bring about the most happiness or at least distress”

          those axioms are in conflict with one another. it’s not that there’s only bad choices. it’s that you’ve given yourself conflicting standards.

          • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Neither of those are axioms I hold. The axiom “all sentient beings are morally relevant” does not specify how to go from there, and I am not convinced that any one ethical framework is “the one”. There are some things that all the ones I’m aware of converge on with a sentientist perspective, but there are weird cases as well like whether to euthanize stray animals where they don’t converge