Thanks, I understand the distinction you’re making . I still disagree that we can reject their moral claims because they don’t take it care far enough- I think animal advocates are pretty sincere even though virtually none of them ever care about wild animals. But I still animal advocates make fair points.
Very good argument imo! It shows there’s a different explanation rather than “people don’t really care about dying embryos” that can be derived from this comparison. People tend to differentiate between what happens “naturally” (or accidentally) vs deliberate human actions. When it comes to wild animal suffering, even if people believe it exists, many will think something along the lines of “it’s not human-made suffering, so it’s not our moral responsibility to do something about it”—which is weird to a consequentialist, but probably quite intuitive for most people.
It takes a few non-obvious steps in reasoning to get to the conclusion that we should care about wild animal suffering. And while fewer steps may be required in the embryo situation, it is still very conceivable that a person who actually cares a lot about embryos might not initially get to the conclusion that the scope of the problem exceeds abortion.
I think animal advocates are pretty sincere even though virtually none of them ever care about wild animals.
Guilty as charged. I sometimes think whether I should, but so far I’ve always come to the conclusion that either there’s a major moral difference (e.g. our direct responsibility for the suffering, or the moral importance of nature), or that interventions to meaningfully change wild animal suffering are bound to have devastating side effects.
I’m not convinced of the act omission distinction, but I’m not ready to throw it away.
I think one argument about wild animal suffering that might be true or might be rationalization is that there’s nothing we can do for now- but you can promote general compassion to animals through activism or veganism or something.
Thanks, I understand the distinction you’re making . I still disagree that we can reject their moral claims because they don’t take it care far enough- I think animal advocates are pretty sincere even though virtually none of them ever care about wild animals. But I still animal advocates make fair points.
Very good argument imo! It shows there’s a different explanation rather than “people don’t really care about dying embryos” that can be derived from this comparison. People tend to differentiate between what happens “naturally” (or accidentally) vs deliberate human actions. When it comes to wild animal suffering, even if people believe it exists, many will think something along the lines of “it’s not human-made suffering, so it’s not our moral responsibility to do something about it”—which is weird to a consequentialist, but probably quite intuitive for most people.
It takes a few non-obvious steps in reasoning to get to the conclusion that we should care about wild animal suffering. And while fewer steps may be required in the embryo situation, it is still very conceivable that a person who actually cares a lot about embryos might not initially get to the conclusion that the scope of the problem exceeds abortion.
That’s a better point. Also,
Guilty as charged. I sometimes think whether I should, but so far I’ve always come to the conclusion that either there’s a major moral difference (e.g. our direct responsibility for the suffering, or the moral importance of nature), or that interventions to meaningfully change wild animal suffering are bound to have devastating side effects.
I’m not convinced of the act omission distinction, but I’m not ready to throw it away.
I think one argument about wild animal suffering that might be true or might be rationalization is that there’s nothing we can do for now- but you can promote general compassion to animals through activism or veganism or something.