(June 19, 2013 at 2:34 pm)John V Wrote: No need for self-awareness, and feeling in this context is sensory, as opposed to emotional feelings such as happiness.You omitted the first definition, which does specify awareness.
Quote:The second one specifies that thinking and self-awareness aren't necessary.But the first one does.
Quote:Again, the first doesn't require self awareness etc.Yes, it does. It specifies it, actually.
Quote:If sentience is the cutoff, your morality would be sentiocentric. The basic idea is that creatures that can suffer have rights, regardless of whether they have thoughts, happiness, or self-awareness.How can a being "suffer" when it has no self-awareness?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
