• oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I explained why it’s not arbitrary, then pointed to a group that does draw arbitrary distinctions. That’s not tu quoque because I’m not saying “you also”

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      you’re saying it’s not arbitrary. “no, you” is still a form of tu quoque. you haven’t actually made a case that sentience isnt an arbitrary standard, and there isn’t a case to be made: sentience isn’t a natural phenomenon outside of human subjective classification. without people, there would be no concept of green or warm or sentient, and any of those attributes is an arbitrary standard to use to judge the ethics of a diet.

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

        Are you saying everything we can talk about is arbitrary because everything we can talk about is with words and concepts?

        Are you talking about meriological nihilism? (thanks alex oconnor for teaching me that term lol)

        I know sentience is real based on the fact that I’m experiencing things right this moment. Based on my understanding of the brain and nervous system, and the strong evidence that those things give rise to my sentience, I think that it’s reasonable to extrapolate that other, similar nervous systems/brains are also sentient and their experience is worth consideration in a similar way to how I consider my own experience (among the many other reasons to have a basic level of empathy)

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

          why sentience and not DNA? or literally any other characteristic? your standard is absolutely arbitrary.

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

            Based on my understanding of the brain and nervous system, and the strong evidence that those things give rise to my sentience, I think that it’s reasonable to extrapolate that other, similar nervous systems/brains are also sentient and their experience is worth consideration in a similar way to how I consider my own experience (among the many other reasons to have a basic level of empathy)

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

              the same can be said of DNA. this is a completely arbitrary standard, and you would be better served to embrace that than pretending it’s somehow objective.

              • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m not saying it is objective, I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.

                If my dna was isolated in a test tube and it could experience things then I would also care about what it experiences. There isn’t any evidence I’m aware of that that’s the case. Dna is the instructions and tool to build the sentient being, not the sentient being itself. So no, the same couldn’t be said of dna. Extrapolating from how much I care about what I experience, I think it’s reasonable to care about what things that experience things experience