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 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-squarewafflez@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·9 months agoAll I was saying is that it’s genuinely not that uncommon to use. Especially in modern philosophy conversations, not specifically academia
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·9 months agothe use is completely different from your use. i still don’t think your use has any entrenchment, and i suspect lacks any real foundation.
minus-squarewafflez@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·9 months agoSuspect that all you’d like, it’s still used lol.
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.
All I was saying is that it’s genuinely not that uncommon to use. Especially in modern philosophy conversations, not specifically academia
the use is completely different from your use. i still don’t think your use has any entrenchment, and i suspect lacks any real foundation.
Suspect that all you’d like, it’s still used lol.