Posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 21:59:20
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Mark H., posted by alexandra_k on February 23, 2005, at 16:21:34
> And all sentient beings are equal too - in the sense that their suffering should be taken into account.
Ah, a correction / clarification.
All sentient beings are not equal (people vary with respect to size and shape and intellectual capacity, moral capacity, etc etc)
That may be why he didn't say that all beings are equal (because they are not).
But to stop the (invalid) step that most people draw from this (namedly, that some people would then be more *worthy* of moral consideration than others) he focused on all *phenomena* being equal.
>>"Are all beings equal?" The lama looked at her for a long moment and said, "All *phenomena* are equal."
Yes, all phenomena are equal (intrinsically) because there is no intrinsic value or worth.
Value or worth is always relative to a sentient beings *goals*.
(Though we sentient beings can also assign *goals* to organisms that may well not be sentient - such as bacteria.)
This reminds me a great deal of Dennett in "Consciousness Explained" where he talks of 'The Birth of Boundaries and Reasons'. And how 'good' and 'bad' only come into being when we assign 'goals' to the organisms (in this case retrospectively).
And now I am starting to feel slightly confused myself...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050215/msgs/462496.html