• Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    You have failed to show that it is an ideology. You have explained that you disagree with it, but that’s not the same thing.

    It’s an empirical fact that living beings don’t like being hurt. Therefore, it avoiding hurt is good. That’s not an ideology, it’s reasoning based on observable facts. An ideological position would be “we need to hurt living beings to further our interests”. The ideological position involves those interests.

    Seeing all living beings as equal (e.g. in terms of prioritising not harming them, just as I would prefer not to be harmed or to harm myself) is about not having an interest, and therefore is clearly not ideological. It’s also objectively true, because in terms of cosmological time, the consequences of all living beings become equal.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’ve explained to you what an ideology is repeatedly, you seem incapable of understanding what you’re being told. The human brain is not capable of holding the entire complexity of the material reality, and therefore it must rely on abstractions and simplifications to do reasoning. You, just like everyone else, have biases and make simplifications leading you to understand things in the specific way that you do. This signifies your particular ideology.

      There are plenty of cases where people try to use empirical evidence with best intentions resulting in great harm being done as a result. Having good intentions is not an ideology, it’s an aspiration. The world view that guides your actions that you put into practice to try to achieve the goals that you believe to be desirable are what your actual ideology is.