I don't say that the process of considering differs, only the specifics. In both cases one considers (at the least implicitly) the moral implications of the solutions under consideration. Often it's a cookie cutter "no moral implications here, move along" treatment that doesn't even make into consciousness. But sometimes something makes us reconsider that. There was a time when shooting a slave didn't even trigger a thought about morals; it was like fixing the porch. Nowadays some think the same about slaughtering cattle or powering down a computer.Tyndmyr wrote:But why should the process of considering how to fix this [dog barking] disturbance differ from the process of considering how to fix your doorstep?
No, it's an understanding issue, which happens before any communication. It's a use of the shortcut where the shortcut is not actually appropriate, leading to a conclusion that is not correct, and whose incorrectness is important in this context.Tyndmyr wrote:Right. And that's merely a communication issue.ucim wrote:But sometimes skimming over it leads to the wrong conclusion.Tyndmyr wrote:Referring to a human as an entity is convenient [...] it's handy to skim over that complexity to concisely discuss an unrelated idea.
But this is getting sufficiently OT for this thread, which is about the objectiveness (or non-) of the foundations of morality.