You are talking about a paradigm shift away from something that has been fundamental to our species for tens of thousands of years. We will have to disagree as to whether that is utopian. And given what a drastic departure it is, I believe the onus is on you to justify it.
Your wrote "A chicken—like a human but unlike a sunflower—has an…
You are talking about a paradigm shift away from something that has been fundamental to our species for tens of thousands of years. We will have to disagree as to whether that is utopian. And given what a drastic departure it is, I believe the onus is on you to justify it.
Your wrote "A chicken—like a human but unlike a sunflower—has an interest in avoiding things that make their life become worse." Seems to me that preferences are clearly implied--for "avoiding things" that make their life "worse."
One can quibble about the finer points of the definition of democracy and still have one. But you are arguing for a paradigm shift based on something the very existence of is contested. Not comparable at all.
I am not saying that what I'm proposing can be achieved tomorrow. And I am happy to point to ways that what I am talking about might be acheivable (indeed, I have already done this -- I've not offered a complete story, of course). But I suppose I'm not quite clear on what you think is so impossible about what I'm proposing. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you haven't explained this, beyond saying that it's a big jump from where we are now -- which I don't deny. Again, there's nothing fundamental to our nature as human beings that means we have to send chickens to slaughterhouses. We could relate to animals differently, if that's what we collectively chose to do.
No, preferences are not implied by my talk of interests and welfare. We can talk about welfare/interests without talking about preferences -- or, we can on many theories of welfare. Perhaps you're drawn to a preference-satisfaction theory of welfare, according to which welfare and preferences are inherently linked. But that's not the only theory of welfare. I'm not committed to a preference-based account of welfare, though I am open to it.
On democracy: Ok, so we are in agreement that my use of contested concepts doesn't undermine my argument. We agree that we can build political principles (indeed, whole political systems) on ideas that are contested and not fully clear. But now your worry is that I'm arguing for a paradigm shift based on something the very existence of which is contested. That's correct. But that's no different to arguing for a political system based on human rights. After all, lots of people -- including perfectly decent people with coherent, defensible moral and political theories -- reject the idea of human rights.
You are talking about a paradigm shift away from something that has been fundamental to our species for tens of thousands of years. We will have to disagree as to whether that is utopian. And given what a drastic departure it is, I believe the onus is on you to justify it.
Your wrote "A chicken—like a human but unlike a sunflower—has an interest in avoiding things that make their life become worse." Seems to me that preferences are clearly implied--for "avoiding things" that make their life "worse."
One can quibble about the finer points of the definition of democracy and still have one. But you are arguing for a paradigm shift based on something the very existence of is contested. Not comparable at all.
I am not saying that what I'm proposing can be achieved tomorrow. And I am happy to point to ways that what I am talking about might be acheivable (indeed, I have already done this -- I've not offered a complete story, of course). But I suppose I'm not quite clear on what you think is so impossible about what I'm proposing. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you haven't explained this, beyond saying that it's a big jump from where we are now -- which I don't deny. Again, there's nothing fundamental to our nature as human beings that means we have to send chickens to slaughterhouses. We could relate to animals differently, if that's what we collectively chose to do.
No, preferences are not implied by my talk of interests and welfare. We can talk about welfare/interests without talking about preferences -- or, we can on many theories of welfare. Perhaps you're drawn to a preference-satisfaction theory of welfare, according to which welfare and preferences are inherently linked. But that's not the only theory of welfare. I'm not committed to a preference-based account of welfare, though I am open to it.
On democracy: Ok, so we are in agreement that my use of contested concepts doesn't undermine my argument. We agree that we can build political principles (indeed, whole political systems) on ideas that are contested and not fully clear. But now your worry is that I'm arguing for a paradigm shift based on something the very existence of which is contested. That's correct. But that's no different to arguing for a political system based on human rights. After all, lots of people -- including perfectly decent people with coherent, defensible moral and political theories -- reject the idea of human rights.