dfsdf

Some things you think are right, and some wrong.
Are there really such things? Are you ever right, or ever wrong?
What would make it so?
What is it that merits our moral consideration?

To merit moral consideration is to have something that suggests there’s some way we ought to treat you, and some ways we ought not treat you.
Are there ever things we ought to do?
What is it that tells us so?

Is it being signator to a contract?

Does that miss something? …Like everyone outside it?

How about being part of a group…

Or is that not it?

Oh. What about being human?

Did we get that wrong?

There’s a tree in the yard. How do I show you it’s really there?

Would showing you do it?

What do you think you’re looking at?

It’s about god damned time!!! ; o )

Not something. Someone.

Aren’t there people with noone, who still suffer? Isn’t that it?

What it is is that people decide. Not in a town meeting, not democratically. But it’s people who “suggest” how people should be treated.

Can they get it wrong?

That’s the thing, Mo_, they can’t be objectively wrong. Their suggestions may simply relate to your own suggestions, or the suggestions of others, in a way that you deem unfavorable.

Why would I deem it unfavorable? What might be my reason?

Because you do not agree with them.

What might be my reason for not agreeing with someone?

That would be on a case-by-case basis.

How about the case of the dog above?

Yes, they can get it wrong. People are motivated to ethics by self-interest. But there are conflicts even within individuals. Long-term and short-term goals can conflict. Morality is not atomic. Moral systems are just that - full of interrelations. So, even if we are deciding just for ourselves, we can work at cross-purposes. We can devise systems that work, that don’t work, that work well or poorly.

These are but a few ways in which we can err.

Because you do not think a human being should render a dog in such a condition.

If we can suggest wrongly, doesn’t that mean it’s something more than a suggestion?

In the case of the dog, I really like dogs and my heart goes out to the dog. i am not above presenting a moral argument in favor of punishing the person who did this. Even if I don’t really believe in the argument. Tough shit. In the end, it just makes me angry. Because i really like dogs. I get a little less excited about chicken factories.

And why did they disagree?

I get pretty excited both about dogs and chicken factories. Especially since the chicken factories are not necessary for us to have eggs. I regularly eat eggs and those chickens are treated very well.

Did who disagree? The person that did that?

No. This is the part you just don’t get. it’s not the act of suggesting itself that is wrong - it would be what we suggest that would be wrong - but not morally wrong. It would be counterproductive to the object of the endeavour. It would be like dialing a wrong number. that’s not the same as a prank call.