Imagine there is someone that cares about everything an equal amount.
Meaning that they care about every person, animal, plant, microbe, rock, etc. equally. They take all of their values at equal consideration (including their own).
How would they react to one thing harming/oppressing another (like a parasite harming its host or invasive species crowding out native species)?
How would they help one thing if they knew it would harm/oppress another thing?
Also let’s say for the sake of argument they don’t
- Sacrifice themselves to help something else out
- Kill themselves due to analysis paralysis
That is actually pretty close to how I was thinking about it. I’m just wondering if there is a balance to it all that we can find. Like if existing necessarily causes harm how much of that is necessary and how much of it is exploitation.
I mean the closest philosophical position that I’ve seen in relation to it is peter singer’s position but that seems exclusive to human-human relations (Edit 3: apparently also animal liberation).
Edit: Also if I was to focus on invasive species again currently we say that because something is an invasive species we should kill or stop them because they are causing damage to the existing ecosystem. Which makes sense to me it is reducing the diversity and possibilities for that space but on an individual level you would be saying that oh your existence is harming other creatures in the area so we need to kill you to make space for others which seems somewhat inhumane?
So the question sort of translates to what level of focus are you judging the value of something at?
Edit 2: Another thing I have against peter singer’s position is that it’s too utilitarian
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)