Glad you ask. The core of the moral framework are humans. Life should be good for humans. Why humans? Because I’m a human. And my moral framework should be universal, applicable by any other human on earth, because offering a morality that work good for every human is the only way to ensure that everyone can follow it and then have a good society. It doesn’t apply to animals as animals themselves cannot adhere at any moral framework they don’t have the ability to do so.
That being said the moral dogma look to ensure the behaviours that should ensure that human life is good. Slavery is bad for a human, so it’s a bad thing. It’s quite simple. A human suffering is just plain bad.
Why I mentioned cruelty before. Because in my moral framework animals have no rights, they couldn’t they are not passive subjects of my morals. But the relationship between humans and animals (and plants and other elements is not inconsecuential in human-human relationships). Humans who are cruel inevitably cause pain in other humans, thus why cruelty is to be avoided. Including cruelty towards animals, planta or other elements. Humans have the right to live in a cruelty free world. That’s why being cruel towards an animal, like causing the animal pain for no other reason that causing it pain, is bad, is cruel and creates a bad world for humans (in essence I’m not caring about the animal here, just about what world is being created for the humans). But if an animal gets killed just because it’s a source of food, and cruelty had no part in the equation, then it’s not bad, as that behavior doesn’t create a bad world for humans to live in.
What is your argument against slavery under this moral framework?
Glad you ask. The core of the moral framework are humans. Life should be good for humans. Why humans? Because I’m a human. And my moral framework should be universal, applicable by any other human on earth, because offering a morality that work good for every human is the only way to ensure that everyone can follow it and then have a good society. It doesn’t apply to animals as animals themselves cannot adhere at any moral framework they don’t have the ability to do so.
That being said the moral dogma look to ensure the behaviours that should ensure that human life is good. Slavery is bad for a human, so it’s a bad thing. It’s quite simple. A human suffering is just plain bad.
Why I mentioned cruelty before. Because in my moral framework animals have no rights, they couldn’t they are not passive subjects of my morals. But the relationship between humans and animals (and plants and other elements is not inconsecuential in human-human relationships). Humans who are cruel inevitably cause pain in other humans, thus why cruelty is to be avoided. Including cruelty towards animals, planta or other elements. Humans have the right to live in a cruelty free world. That’s why being cruel towards an animal, like causing the animal pain for no other reason that causing it pain, is bad, is cruel and creates a bad world for humans (in essence I’m not caring about the animal here, just about what world is being created for the humans). But if an animal gets killed just because it’s a source of food, and cruelty had no part in the equation, then it’s not bad, as that behavior doesn’t create a bad world for humans to live in.