If you prefer audio, here are the links to the Sentientism podcast: 🍎apple.co/391khQO 👂pod.link/1540408008. Ratings, reviews & sharing with friends all appreciated. You're helping normalise "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings" sentientism.info. Everyone is welcome in our online communities - come join us: facebook.com/groups/sentientism.
58:55 I care about mosquitos, but because I also care about the bodily autonomy of those who don't consent to being used as a meal by the mosquito, I can care more about those being used and defending them against the mosquito. That said, I don't go out of my way to seek out mosquitoes to preemptively kill.
53:16 Same here in terms of the view that trees having intrinsic moral value...... they don't, they may have inherent value only so far as they are instrumental to sentient individuals collectively or individually. Trees have intrinsic characteristics, features, or traits. But any moral value that might be ascribed to them is inherent based on how sentient beings may subjectively value them instrumentally. By sentient, I mean having the capacity of subjective experiences.
46:00 Zzzzzzzzzzzactly, Jamie. There's truth claims that have little to no testable or verifiable substantiation or corroborated justification ( or as you put it, "evidence based" )........ and there are truth claims that have a high level and quality of verifiable substantiation and justification. 👍
@@Sentientism Yes, I've seen and liked that video before....... but tell me I'm not wrong with how much similarly in looks these two awesome women are!
Asking what or who matters may be less important than asking: What redemptive value do those who think they matter really have? 😁 Google "humanity's greatest achievements" and you'll find we have no redemptive value. Which individuals matter? I would agree with your sentientist answer but would add the condition of fitting in with the ecosystem. I mean so what if I learn the "great achievements" of evolutionary theory or physics or whatever, if I harm the ecosystem where these things exist? Those who do more harm matter less, have less redemptive value, no matter their "achievements". If we screw up the habitats of most or all sentient beings then we matter less than say, the lowly mosquito. (The lowly mosquito would agree with that already anyway.😁)
I feel the pull of that approach but I fear it ends up in another hierarchy where those with the power to do more good might matter more than those without much power or privilege? I prefer a universal compassion for every sentient being regardless of their "redemptive value" - while still being clear about the importance of that redemptive value because of the impact each of us have on all the other sentients - for good or ill.
@@Sentientism I agree. Another way of saying redemptive value is "saving grace". Let people compete for "saving grace". 😁 There is some value in it, but given human nature it's probably best not to overemphasize it (or hierarchize it). 😈
I do believe there are many types of knowledge, but because we are similar biological structures we are bound to perceive reality similarly and our concepts, although arbitrary, will converge when we talk about what's foundational to our experience... so I guess what I am saying is there is one reality we share and our experiences in it are very similar, so reality isn't relative, our knowledge is relative to our experience and our experiences largely converge.
Agree. I think the problem occurs when there's a slippage from "we each have somewhat different knowledges" to "there are different realities" or even "there is no reality - so I can make anything up" :)
If you prefer audio, here are the links to the Sentientism podcast: 🍎apple.co/391khQO 👂pod.link/1540408008. Ratings, reviews & sharing with friends all appreciated. You're helping normalise "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings" sentientism.info. Everyone is welcome in our online communities - come join us: facebook.com/groups/sentientism.
1:00:16
Zzzzzzzzzzzactly
58:55
I care about mosquitos, but because I also care about the bodily autonomy of those who don't consent to being used as a meal by the mosquito, I can care more about those being used and defending them against the mosquito.
That said, I don't go out of my way to seek out mosquitoes to preemptively kill.
53:16
Same here in terms of the view that trees having intrinsic moral value...... they don't, they may have inherent value only so far as they are instrumental to sentient individuals collectively or individually.
Trees have intrinsic characteristics, features, or traits. But any moral value that might be ascribed to them is inherent based on how sentient beings may subjectively value them instrumentally.
By sentient, I mean having the capacity of subjective experiences.
46:00
Zzzzzzzzzzzactly, Jamie. There's truth claims that have little to no testable or verifiable substantiation or corroborated justification ( or as you put it, "evidence based" )........ and there are truth claims that have a high level and quality of verifiable substantiation and justification.
👍
Looks super interesting !
Thanks Joseph - hope you enjoy. Let me know what you think.
Looking forward to watching this
👶🏻
Thanks Louis - hope you enjoy as much as I did!
@Sentientism
It can't be just me, but doesn't Carol Jasper look a lot like Molly Elwood of the Elwood's Dogmeat fame? 🤔
@@LouisGedo Ha - maybe... ua-cam.com/video/HmMCxj95PUs/v-deo.html
@@Sentientism
Yes, I've seen and liked that video before....... but tell me I'm not wrong with how much similarly in looks these two awesome women are!
Asking what or who matters may be less important than asking: What redemptive value do those who think they matter really have? 😁 Google "humanity's greatest achievements" and you'll find we have no redemptive value.
Which individuals matter? I would agree with your sentientist answer but would add the condition of fitting in with the ecosystem. I mean so what if I learn the "great achievements" of evolutionary theory or physics or whatever, if I harm the ecosystem where these things exist? Those who do more harm matter less, have less redemptive value, no matter their "achievements".
If we screw up the habitats of most or all sentient beings then we matter less than say, the lowly mosquito. (The lowly mosquito would agree with that already anyway.😁)
I feel the pull of that approach but I fear it ends up in another hierarchy where those with the power to do more good might matter more than those without much power or privilege? I prefer a universal compassion for every sentient being regardless of their "redemptive value" - while still being clear about the importance of that redemptive value because of the impact each of us have on all the other sentients - for good or ill.
@@Sentientism I agree. Another way of saying redemptive value is "saving grace". Let people compete for "saving grace". 😁 There is some value in it, but given human nature it's probably best not to overemphasize it (or hierarchize it). 😈
I do believe there are many types of knowledge, but because we are similar biological structures we are bound to perceive reality similarly and our concepts, although arbitrary, will converge when we talk about what's foundational to our experience... so I guess what I am saying is there is one reality we share and our experiences in it are very similar, so reality isn't relative, our knowledge is relative to our experience and our experiences largely converge.
Agree. I think the problem occurs when there's a slippage from "we each have somewhat different knowledges" to "there are different realities" or even "there is no reality - so I can make anything up" :)
You should watch Peter Joseph's documentaries. They are about making the planet sustainable.