bug_05992

I somewhat agree with you that the character of a person can be inferred by the ideals they claim to hold. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that, given the context of the worldview held by the speaker, you can infer positions that person might take on other issues of the day.

Understanding the worldview of the speaker is incredibly important when making character calls. I've found that people will attempt to reveal their character to you in subtle ways, often in an attempt to see what positions you claim to hold in response. The ideals they claim to hold often mean very different things for their character depending on their worldview.

Example: I've found that when interacting with people who have grown up in black culture, when they make a statement against the ownership of guns, they're actually signaling to you that they don't believe in the unjust use of violence. In white culture, revealing a pro-gun stance says more about their belief in the role of the individual in relation to the government. Confusing one for the other will result in a very unproductive conversation.

People tend to interpret other's words outside of the context of the speaker's actual worldview. My understanding is that this is the problem that 'attacking the person's ideas, rather than their character' tries to solve.

Full disclaimer, I grew up in a very conservative circle(The kind that didn't vote for, and generally has a strong distaste for Trump), and as a result I have a very good understanding for how their ideas tend to be generated. I can say with confidence that many of these people have outstanding moral character, but would also be condemned by those in more liberal circles.(Granted, the conservatives I know are absolutely guilty of the reverse)

I don't see any reason to believe that minimizing suffering is equivalent to maximizing good, not in the real world where real things happen. Morality must always be tempered by reality. Sometimes suffering of some form must be endured in order to improve a situation.(Example: Your body will induce fever in an attempt to kill off pathogens)

There seems to be an interesting cultural view that it's morally acceptable to butcher cows, but not dogs or cats.(I do think it's admirable that you've attempted to reconcile this) This has baffled me, but I think I've found an explanation for why this may be the case. My suspicion is that the disgust people feel when pets aren't treated with preference over other animals has more to do with the revealing of the character of the owner than it does with assigning the same moral value to a pet as a human. The idea that a person would make a promise to care for and protect someone or something, then callously disregard its suffering is interpreted as a lack of character. Anyone who would do that to an animal might just do it to a person as well.(This same line of reasoning applies to sex with animals as well, or any action that reflects badly on the character of the person performing the action)

Using this perspective, there isn't a contradiction between treating a pet with care vs slaughtering a cow. The dominant view appears to be that animals are primarily utilitarian, in service to humans to the degree that they provide something in return. Many religions take this stance: Christianity treats nature as a fallen garden. Judaism does this as well.(https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/1-Timothy/5/18) I think Hinduism is an exception, though I'm not that familiar with it. The atheistic view of animal suffering tends to put emphasis on the idea that animals share a similar consciousness to humans, and thus when pain is inflicted on an animal, someone is in there feeling it.(Though there is no way to prove this)

I fall into the atheistic category, but I don't see any reason to give non-human animals the same moral value as humans. Why should I when there is so much to be gained by domesticating them? They suffer in the wild, often more so than in human captivity. They can radically decrease the suffering of humans by preventing hunger. Animal domestication provides jobs. Pets provide happiness. I don't see how a primarily utilitarian view of non-human animals can reflect poorly on our character with these things are taken into consideration.