If you believe there is no objective way to compare valence between individuals, then I don’t see how you can claim that it’s wrong to discount the welfare of red-haired people.
This feels too strong of a claim to me. There are still non-objective ways to compare valence between individuals—J Bostock mentions “anchor(ing) on neuron count”.
I guess you could say “Ignoring red-haired people is evil and ignoring bees isn’t evil, because those are my values”, but I don’t know how you can expect to convince anyone else to agree with your values.
I might not strongly agree, but I believe in this direction. I think that humans are generally pretty important and I like human values.
There’s always going to be some subjectivity: I think this is good.
This feels too strong of a claim to me. There are still non-objective ways to compare valence between individuals—J Bostock mentions “anchor(ing) on neuron count”.
I might not strongly agree, but I believe in this direction. I think that humans are generally pretty important and I like human values.
There’s always going to be some subjectivity: I think this is good.