Hmm. I see your point about abstraction. In my own mind, personal relationships matter was part of people matter, but it is not obvious from what I said.
That's the thing, really. A list of what matters is hard, because we don't tend to think in those terms. These things form the very basis of what we are; it's not easy to even see that, sometimes.
For example, notice how - in my above post - I immediately jumped on ethics? But that's not the only function religion sastisfies. Take, for example, "life after death". The question of whether such a thing exists may matter to people, although the answer need not be directly ethical in nature. That is, the primary reason why it matters is comfort rather than a decision aid.
Bear in mind that my list was personal so I did not intend to dismiss your cat.
I know. When you said, "Human suffering matters," I didn't actually think that you meant to say that non-human suffering doesn't matter. But there has to be a reason you added "human".
My objection is methodological: if you're trying to get at commonalities by listing things that matter, you're making things trickier by putting a lot into one statement. For example, you might break down "Human suffering matters," into:
a) "Suffering matters."
b) "Being human matters."
Unless one of those two is conditional (e.g. being human only matters if you're suffering), you should end up in much the same place. But you've taken things apart analytically: you've become more abstract.
I read your original post when you posted it, but I left the thread alone, because I simply didn't know what to say. Anything I could think of seemed either trite or untrue. Then I forgot about the thread until it was revived today. And I still don't know what to say, except when riffing off of your list.
So, for example, I know I would never have said "human suffering matters." If it's valid to break that down into a) and b) above, for example, we could find out why: I think it's because I assign a lower priority ot "being human matters". That is: after we have a list of things that matter, we can assign rankings to the things that matter.
I'm not sure "being human" matters to me all that much. I think, if I ever find myself agreeing with that it's probably on account of a hidden variable, such as "things I can understand matter more than things I don't understand" (which is maybe pragmatically sound since you'll be less anxious about "messing up", but potentially has troubling implications with respects to -isms and perceived).
But we do seem to have an ethical divide not so much about the cat as about the stranger.
While I tend to think that I do not have equal responsibility to all people (my wife and children are more directly my care than anyone else), I do not hold with the idea that a stranger is none of my care. I may not be able to practically do anything for them, but they are still my care and concern.
And, if say someone close to me harmed a stranger wrongly, I would think it wrong to protect them from the consequences of their actions.
I don't disagree with anything you said here. That's what makes even mentioning things that "matter" so difficult.
You said: "Human suffering matters."
I thought to myself: well, yes it does. But why single out "human" suffering? The result of that train of thought found its way into my post, but it wasn't exactly thought through.
For example, when I said, "I'd prioritise the family cat I've known since she was 8 weeks old over a random stranger," I've probably over-generalised what I'd do, precisely because I reacted against the "human". And now you've probably had the same reaction to "stranger". And that makes it so hard. I'm not even sure what I
should have said. Proabably something like:
I can imagine situations in which I would prioritise the family cat over strangers.
But is that really closer to the truth? Or am I understating my case? I find this difficult. What did I really mean?
I think that what matters to me is "personal relationship". That is: I've put effort in maintaining it. That would be consistent with other feelings of mine. If it suddenly turned out that I had a brother I knew nothing about, then that brother would mean little to me, probably because we have no personal relationship. Saying "Personal relationships matter," feels consistent with saying "Blood ties don't matter" (which is something I've often said). So, maybe that's what I was saying?
I have an easier time forming attachments to some animals than to some people, and that should matter, too. Or rather: don't priviledge humans just because they share your species.
Again, this is all very abstract, and in practise we won't disagree about a lot of things (judging from your posts). But we do react differently to each other's language. Which is interesting. And something I've never quite worked out.
Perhaps I could summarise my reason to post like this:
1. A list of things that matter is probably incomplete.
2. A list of things that matter will include things that matter more and things that matter less (and the more something matters the more likely it's going to be in the list)
Thus, a list of things that matter implies a way of ordering experience: a set of implicit priorities. (See your "human suffering" instead of "suffering", and my "personal realtionships" instead of "relationships")
4. A list of things that matter will include things that are more controversial, and things that are less controversial (and the more controversial something that matters is, the more likely it is in the list)
Thus, a list of things that matter hints at who are used to talking to. (See my reply to your post, which reflects personally acquired bugbears with humanist rhetoric and - possibly - ethics.)
5. You'll never know if something's on the list because of (3) or (4) (or some other reason I can't think of), and thus it's best not to make assumptions. Also, (3) and (4) are not independent of each other: who you talk to a lot has an influence on how you order your perceptions.
6. So bearing this in mind, how do we figure out commonolaties based on lists of things that matter? Somehow, I don't think Venn diagrams will work...
***
ETA: @Fairness: So, let's say, you think you're fair, and I think you're unfair. Could it be that it's because we think different things matter? (I don't mean to be difficult. I just am.)
