That is good information that it has been ratified.
To put it in ethical terms, it may be good to give a very wide berth on where the definition of sentience might be. (ignoring or including that the capability for suffering may not be identical to sentience. but agreed its a good starting point to establish a bounds.)
To put it in intellectual or scientific terms, no numeric value can be correctly assigned to a real world quantity without an associated error. The maximum radius of that error is roughly what I would ascribe to the “wide berth” mentioned above.
The limits of our perception meaning there’s a chance we may be wrong, and in this context i’d rather be wrong for the right reasons - so to speak.
There’s alot of discussion around humans being more valuable because of our elevated perception and sentience. I would put it the other way: with the increased sentience comes a duty of care, that is where our responsibilities to other species comes from imo.
I know I didn’t say anything to disagree with either of you, just continuing the enjoyable discussion.
I would like to interject here for one thing: individuals of other species have autonomous lifes, and we would be only responsible in the limits on which we have to take care of them as if they were our children or similar, which is mostly when we adopt them because they have no place in human society in an autonomous way.
sorry late reply, got sucked into work and thing. finally back.
yeah i agree with you here. all i meant re. responsibility was along the lines of, when people ask “is it ok to mistreat animals for <whatever> gain?”.
my response would be, no, not only is it wrong because its plain wrong, but also because we have responsibility.
Certain mollusks I think.
All those are sentient, it was near to sponges without differentiated tissues.
That is good information that it has been ratified.
To put it in ethical terms, it may be good to give a very wide berth on where the definition of sentience might be. (ignoring or including that the capability for suffering may not be identical to sentience. but agreed its a good starting point to establish a bounds.)
To put it in intellectual or scientific terms, no numeric value can be correctly assigned to a real world quantity without an associated error. The maximum radius of that error is roughly what I would ascribe to the “wide berth” mentioned above.
The limits of our perception meaning there’s a chance we may be wrong, and in this context i’d rather be wrong for the right reasons - so to speak.
There’s alot of discussion around humans being more valuable because of our elevated perception and sentience. I would put it the other way: with the increased sentience comes a duty of care, that is where our responsibilities to other species comes from imo.
I know I didn’t say anything to disagree with either of you, just continuing the enjoyable discussion.
I would like to interject here for one thing: individuals of other species have autonomous lifes, and we would be only responsible in the limits on which we have to take care of them as if they were our children or similar, which is mostly when we adopt them because they have no place in human society in an autonomous way.
sorry late reply, got sucked into work and thing. finally back.
yeah i agree with you here. all i meant re. responsibility was along the lines of, when people ask “is it ok to mistreat animals for <whatever> gain?”.
my response would be, no, not only is it wrong because its plain wrong, but also because we have responsibility.