• NSRXN
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    You could for instance, use that to say any group of humans are distinct in some way and thus deserve different moral consideration. Be it by gender, skin tone, etc.

    comparing women to animals is what misogynists do. comparing other races to animals is what racists do. lets be better than them.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      That is missing what I am saying entirely. Argue with the logic, please, instead of a false interpenetration. The exact categories are not relevant to what I am saying at all. What matters is that the reasoning could be used to justify difference between categorization of humans that you think shouldn’t be morally relvent

      Those are examples of the conclusion the flawed logic (difference = inherently justifying different treatment) could be used to justify. So I am saying we should reject the premise because of what the same logic can justify

      • NSRXN
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        people should be treated differently than animals. doing so is necessary for right action. how we treat animals should have no bearing on how we treat each other.

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          This is all circling around and missing the point I am making. The problem I am point out is about the logical reasoning. If logical reasoning is flawed when applied to something else, then it should not be used

          This conversation is going in circle, so just going to end this here

          • NSRXN
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            it’s illogical to try to fly a plane like you are driving a car. different things are different and it is correct to treat them so.