(March 26, 2014 at 7:12 pm)rasetsu Wrote:X-centrism has often been used to exclude others from moral consideration. Why should I care about black people if I'm from a predominantly white country? Why should I care about women if I'm a man? Why should I care about Jews and gypseys if I'm a Christian?(March 26, 2014 at 5:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I don't see any non-anthropocentric and -arbitrary reason why this same standard of preknowledge of suffering shouldn't mean we should not force the existence of those animals.
Funny that you should preface this with "non-anthropocentric," without justification, because by insisting that it be so, you've pretty much made whatever rationale you adopt for your stance an arbitrary one.
Well, the people who were once so confident in asserting their X-centric dominance are now hated, exactly because X-centrism isn't sufficient reason to inflict suffering on others.
Is it arbitrary to say that black people should be free? Yes. Is it arbitrary to say that women should be considered equal? Yes. It's all arbitrary. However, given a moral rule that is accepted, it should be extended to all possible parties unless there's a moral reason why they should be excluded.
