Proving What We Already "Know"

[The Grand Nudger]

I think I've figured out what you mean by a gods eye view - though I think you were simply expressing the idea that we have some better version of x. What do you think accounts for that difference, between car-worm-us?

There are any number of reasons that a thing could be bad in the absence of qualia. To be blunt, there are more reasons that a thing could be bad -absent- any reference to qualia than to those references. Do you think it would be more or less bad to beat a man in a coma, on the notion that they wouldn't experience it?

Things with minimal sentience and things with no detectable sentience whatsoever, even by your definition, are still routinely in danger. Living and nonliving things. Our rivers are in danger - our forests are in danger, etc etc etc.

I'd say you're zero for three doubling down on these...and I doubt that positions of convenience accurately express whatever it is you're trying to communicate. I'd certainly agree that there are dangers to sentient things that are not dangerous to non sentient things. An added set of items of moral import. I also think that there are items of moral import that only apply to sentient things. I'd also say that not all danger is of a moral import - sentient subject or not. Dogs put things in danger, routinely, probably not a moral issue. Earthquakes bring down buildings..also not a moral issue.

Truth in context appears to be an empty phrase. If the context of a truth is the set of relevant facts, than that's just plain old bog standard truth - for example. Realism, relativism, and subjectivism are all cognitive theories of morality. This means, simply, that they are truth apt.