Nonhuman animals are integrated with human “monkey spheres”—e.g. people live with their pets, bond with them and give them names.
A second mistake is that you decry normative ethics, only to implicitly establish a norm in the next paragraph as if it were a fact:
I, like you and everyone else, have a monkey-sphere. I only care about the monkeys in my tribe that are closest to me, and I might as well admit it because it’s there. So, nevermind cows and pigs...
Obviously, there are people whose preferences include the welfare of cows and pigs, hence this discussion and the well-funded existence of PETA etc. By prescribing to a monkey-sphere that “everyone” has and that doesn’t include nonhuman animals, you are effectively telling us what we should care about, not what we actually care about.
Even if you don’t care about animal welfare, the fact that others do has an influence on your “monkey-sphere”, even if it’s weak.
The term “monkeysphere”, which is a nickname for Dunbar’s Number, originates from thisCracked.com article. The term relates not only to the studies done on monkeys (and apes), but also the idea of there existing a limit on the number of named, cutely dressed monkeys about which a hypothetical person could really care.
Nonhuman animals are integrated with human “monkey spheres”—e.g. people live with their pets, bond with them and give them names.
Oh yeah, absolutely. I trust my friend’s judgment how much members of her monkeysphere are worth to her, and utility to my friend is weighed against utility to others in my monkeysphere proportional to how close they are to me.
My monkeysphere has long tails extending by default to all members of my species whose interests are not at odds with my own or those closer to me in the monkeysphere. Since I would be willing to use force against a human to defend myself or others at the core of my monkeysphere, it seems that I should be even more willing to use force against such a human and save the lives of several cattle in the process.
Obviously, there are people whose preferences include the welfare of cows and pigs, hence this discussion and the well-funded existence of PETA etc.
Cults are well-funded too. I don’t dispute that people care about both them and animal rights. What I dispute is whether supporting either of them offers enough benefits to the supporter that I would consider it a rational choice to make.
Nonhuman animals are integrated with human “monkey spheres”—e.g. people live with their pets, bond with them and give them names.
A second mistake is that you decry normative ethics, only to implicitly establish a norm in the next paragraph as if it were a fact:
Obviously, there are people whose preferences include the welfare of cows and pigs, hence this discussion and the well-funded existence of PETA etc. By prescribing to a monkey-sphere that “everyone” has and that doesn’t include nonhuman animals, you are effectively telling us what we should care about, not what we actually care about.
Even if you don’t care about animal welfare, the fact that others do has an influence on your “monkey-sphere”, even if it’s weak.
Btw, aren’t humans apes rather than monkeys?
The term “monkeysphere”, which is a nickname for Dunbar’s Number, originates from this Cracked.com article. The term relates not only to the studies done on monkeys (and apes), but also the idea of there existing a limit on the number of named, cutely dressed monkeys about which a hypothetical person could really care.
Yes, precisely. Thanks for finding the link.
Although I think of mine as a density function rather than a fixed number. Everyone has a little bit of my monkey-sphere associated with them. hug
Oh yeah, absolutely. I trust my friend’s judgment how much members of her monkeysphere are worth to her, and utility to my friend is weighed against utility to others in my monkeysphere proportional to how close they are to me.
My monkeysphere has long tails extending by default to all members of my species whose interests are not at odds with my own or those closer to me in the monkeysphere. Since I would be willing to use force against a human to defend myself or others at the core of my monkeysphere, it seems that I should be even more willing to use force against such a human and save the lives of several cattle in the process.
Cults are well-funded too. I don’t dispute that people care about both them and animal rights. What I dispute is whether supporting either of them offers enough benefits to the supporter that I would consider it a rational choice to make.