>>18254282
You still don't get what I'm saying. Your problem is you inability to coherently state your view on consciousness (no, the problem does not have to be solved to posses one) as it relates to suffering, which you've stated to be the primary ethical adjudicator.
If I say that something uses its sense organs to identify things it finds most pleasing, namely, food, and also uses those very same organs to avoid things it doesn't desire, namely, hostile and unpleasant stimuli, then this is the distinction between pleasure and suffering, no? Or is consciousness necessary for suffering? or does it only increase suffering in those cursed to posses it? (then one could mitigate suffering through accurate lobotomies, excising those parts of the brain that, presumable on your view, bestow consciousness?) Either suffering only exists for those sapient, or it doesn't. Either you possess a morality entirely defined by pleasure/pain which, in lieu of a more accurate summation of your thoughts than you've given me, cannot in my mind be differentiated from the suffering of non-conscious creatures, who, in their sheer mass, must outweigh human suffering, or, you don't.
Your positions as they stand are illogical; your categorical statements on easily measured sufferings nonsensical and biased towards a pathetically human viewpoint; you are as my sister, someone who pretends to a trans-human morality, yet, in the end, falls towards granting an arbitrary preference to animals you find cute. Isolate where the suffering is, define it to the best of your ability, and then use these to properly define you ethics. Also: personally I disagree that the rock doesn't suffer.