The idea being debated
Sometimes, in an argument, someone says: "Ethics was invented by humans. So any rule is as good as any other. Treating animals worse is just another choice."
Being invented doesn't mean being arbitrary
Here's the mistake: thinking that if something was invented, then all opinions about it are equally good.
Think about chess. The rules were invented by people. Even so, within chess there are good moves and bad moves. An experienced player can show why a move is a mistake.
Or think about math, medicine, or cooking. They're human creations, but they have better and worse answers.
Ethics also has better and worse answers
The author points out three differences that apply in ethics:
- Relevant or irrelevant. Some positions are based on something that matters for the decision (like being able to feel pain). Others are based on something that doesn't matter (like eye color).
- Arbitrary or not. Some positions apply the same standard to everyone. Others change the rule whenever it's convenient.
- Biased or impartial. Some positions favor the person deciding. Others treat everyone with the same care.
These differences exist even if ethics was created by humans.
In short
- Many invented things, like chess, have right and wrong answers.
- In ethics, you can also judge whether a standard is relevant, consistent, and impartial.
- So the idea that "ethics was invented" doesn't justify treating animals worse.