I’ve noticed that there seems to be an emphasis on being extremely serious at all times, as if every single comment is a PhD dissertation being evaluated or something. There’s like this weird, subtle one upmanship about every little thing and a lot of people are very nitpicky and judgmental. It kind of takes the fun out of being on here, TBH. Or am I the only one experiencing this?
Yes, see these arguments don’t even get that far. The idea that consciousness could surpass animals is where they devolve into ad hominem attacks. Their entire basis is from feeling good about not causing harm (at all) which would be seen as a personal attack should they consider a plant to be ‘alive’ in the same sense as anything else.
See at the end there i remind ppl I’m agreeing that it minimalizes the deaths. I don’t have any issue with that argument. I fully agree with it.
What I don’t quite agree is that consciousness is distinguishable by arbitrary rules of what defines consiousness, as you’ve taken it for example here: in a utilitarian sense. And it changes depending on who you talk to and what school of thought you lean towards. But it’s still theory and not factually measured as we can’t really agree with certainties on what defines conscience. I realise that enters the faith context and in science that’s considered ‘theory’.
My stance is still if they want to take the consciousness argument, they are entering problematic arguments around it if it’s a purist moral ethics approach. I don’t believe there is a purist approach in the consciousness argument. We can still agree that it minimalizes harm.