Syl ⏚@jlai.lu to The memes of the climate@lemmy.worldEnglish · 9 months agoLittle things you can do to save the environmentjlai.luimagemessage-square348fedilinkarrow-up120arrow-down11
arrow-up119arrow-down1imageLittle things you can do to save the environmentjlai.luSyl ⏚@jlai.lu to The memes of the climate@lemmy.worldEnglish · 9 months agomessage-square348fedilink
minus-squarewafflez@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·9 months agoIt’s killing another being who’s morally significant. It’s murder. Just as killing someone’s dog is murder.
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·9 months agoi do t know what you mean by morally significant
minus-squarewafflez@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·9 months agoA being who has the capacity to suffer. Depriving someone of future experiences is suffering
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·9 months agoI do t know why that would make them morally significant or what moral significance is supposed to mean. kant never discussed it. I don’t actually know of any ethicist who has used the phrase.
minus-squarewafflez@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·9 months agoIt’s popular in modern philosophy discussions. It means a being who is morally valuable
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·9 months agocan you point to any peer reviewed sources on this?
minus-squarewafflez@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·9 months agoIt’s used in a variety of different settings and ways online, not just peer reviewed sources lol. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/is-every-action-morally-significant/8B98FABF7F010004F27F5B0425CC77C6
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·9 months agothe term is certainly used there, but it’s not in the same context. i don’t think you know this topic well enough to engage on it.
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·9 months agoonly by definitions that stretch the term to meaninglessness
minus-squarewafflez@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·9 months agoYour inability to express kindness for victims doesn’t make the words meaningless. Don’t pay for murder
minus-squarewafflez@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·9 months agoIf you pay for animal products you do.
it’s not murder.
It’s killing another being who’s morally significant. It’s murder. Just as killing someone’s dog is murder.
i do t know what you mean by morally significant
A being who has the capacity to suffer. Depriving someone of future experiences is suffering
I do t know why that would make them morally significant or what moral significance is supposed to mean. kant never discussed it. I don’t actually know of any ethicist who has used the phrase.
It’s popular in modern philosophy discussions. It means a being who is morally valuable
can you point to any peer reviewed sources on this?
It’s used in a variety of different settings and ways online, not just peer reviewed sources lol.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/is-every-action-morally-significant/8B98FABF7F010004F27F5B0425CC77C6
the term is certainly used there, but it’s not in the same context. i don’t think you know this topic well enough to engage on it.
It’s murder.
only by definitions that stretch the term to meaninglessness
Your inability to express kindness for victims doesn’t make the words meaningless. Don’t pay for murder
I dont
You do if you fund it
i don’t fund it, either
If you pay for animal products you do.
no, i don’t