Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The foundational link of religion and hospitality must be extended to animals as well as humans

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Derrida's 'tout autre est tout autre' is a formal logical equivalence, not a substantive ethical claim about moral consideration.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Extending hospitality requires a reciprocal structure of recognition that animals, lacking linguistic subjectivity, cannot enter into.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Levinas explicitly argued that the face, as the ground of ethical obligation, is a distinctly human phenomenon not extended to animals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Abrahamic religious traditions ground hospitality in covenant obligations between persons bearing the imago Dei, not in generic otherness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Collapsing the distinction between human and animal hospitality obligations risks dissolving the specific theological anthropology that gives religious hospitality its normative force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Animals are genuinely other
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Every other is wholly other (tout autre est tout autre)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the link must be open to every single other, it must include animals
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.