(July 29, 2019 at 1:34 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:(July 29, 2019 at 1:31 pm)Shell B Wrote: Isn't that what all of "morality" is? As for the particular coddled animals part, I've already established that my argument is the hypocrisy is what needs to be corrected, not the fact that we're making it a criminal act to harm animals.
Tribal morality might be just a list of thou shall nots. But in a complex society the basis of morality should be principles that can both be generally agreed to and not self-defeating in the sense that it relies on acquiesce of people who might come to strongly perceive their interests to lie else where.
So, it's acceptable to base our moral principles as a society on the feelings of yuppies toward their couches because their interests lie there? That's not how it works, and is why moral philosophy has long included the interests of animals and our duties toward them. I don't know where you get the idea that it hasn't been part of society and human morality in more than just the above-mentioned case-by-case scenario, but that's incorrect. As long as we've been pondering morality, we've been establishing our duty to animals. That being unnecessarily cruel to animals is morally wrong is as long held as the idea that you shouldn't kill someone.
