It’s more like our terminal values never require us to consider a preference an alien has that is radically opposed to important human values.
That’s certainly how we behave. But is it true? Why?
Edit: If your answer is “Terminal value conflicts are intractable,” I agree. But that answer suggests certain consequences in how society should be organized, and yet modern society does not really address actual value conflicts with “Purge it with fire.”
Also, the word values in the phrases “human values” and “animal values” does not mean the same thing in common usage. Conventional wisdom holds that terminal values are not something that non-human animals have—connotatively if not denotatively.
Edit: If your answer is “Terminal value conflicts are intractable,” I agree. But that answer suggests certain consequences in how society should be organized, and yet modern society does not really address actual value conflicts with “Purge it with fire.”
I think I might believe that such conflicts are intractable. The reason that society generally doesn’t flat-out kill people with totally alien values is that such people are rare-to-nonexistant. Humans who are incurably sociopathic could be regarded as creatures with alien values, providing their sociopathy is egosyntonic. We do often permanently lock up or execute such people.
Also, the word values in the phrases “human values” and “animal values” does not mean the same thing in common usage
You might be right, if you define “value” as “a terminal goal that a consequentialist creature has” and believe most animals do not have enough brainpower to be consequentialists. If this is the case I think that animal cruelty laws are an probably an expression of the human value that creatures not be in pain
That’s certainly how we behave. But is it true? Why?
Edit: If your answer is “Terminal value conflicts are intractable,” I agree. But that answer suggests certain consequences in how society should be organized, and yet modern society does not really address actual value conflicts with “Purge it with fire.”
Also, the word values in the phrases “human values” and “animal values” does not mean the same thing in common usage. Conventional wisdom holds that terminal values are not something that non-human animals have—connotatively if not denotatively.
I think I might believe that such conflicts are intractable. The reason that society generally doesn’t flat-out kill people with totally alien values is that such people are rare-to-nonexistant. Humans who are incurably sociopathic could be regarded as creatures with alien values, providing their sociopathy is egosyntonic. We do often permanently lock up or execute such people.
You might be right, if you define “value” as “a terminal goal that a consequentialist creature has” and believe most animals do not have enough brainpower to be consequentialists. If this is the case I think that animal cruelty laws are an probably an expression of the human value that creatures not be in pain