Or “ethical” vs “moral”

  • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Thanks for your reply. :)

    Wouldn’t ethics then define right and wrong in terms of its impact on the well-being of sentient beings, rather than just human well-being?

    And I suppose the difference with morality might be that certain actions that don’t necessarily negatively impact other sentient beings, such as recreational drug use, might still be considered immoral by some due to cultural norms rather than practical considerations about the rightness or wrongness of them?

    • 1bluepixel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think generalizing the good of human beings to all sentient beings is a great example of how a rigorous ethical discourse can expand traditional morality. The idea of giving rights to great apes is a wonderful example and I hope we can get there soon.

      And likewise, a lot of traditionally “wrong” behaviors can be argued to be morally neutral if they don’t really diminish the well-being of human beings. Sex work is another example.

      • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I completely agree. Would you, in theory, be in support of giving rights to all sentient beings where possible, ensuring the best possible treatment and experiences of all individuals that have a conscious/subjective experience of life?

        I would ideally like to see humanity extend moral/ethical consideration beyond humans to all animals, hypothetical alien animals, sentient AI, or any other sentients that emerged in future. I believe sentientism is the core underlying philosophy behind this idea of ethics.