4 ms·
There is a great difference between what is rationally true and what an emotional being (i.e. a person) will do. See the trolley problem and many others. For
by mises 7y ago
There is a great difference between what is rationally true and what an emotional being (i.e. a person) will do. See the trolley problem and many others. For instance, people will stay in a declining stock past the "rational threshold" because they have developed an emotional attachment to it.
We view people and animals as different. We have a long tradition of viewing people as different. We have pushed those limits somewhat with organ donation, but generally speaking, we don't break people down for spare parts. Most religions and corresponding cultures view people as made by God and having a small element of the diving. This is the reason people are considered better than animals, and the reason there are different requirements for veterinary vs human medicine. Same reason we eat animals without issue.
Maybe you disagree; we are each free to our respective opinions. But most people don't view humans as "just another kind of animal".
- yters 7y agoIf that's the case, then why is it a good thing that humans are being used for compost? Seems inconsistent. Either humans are more sacred than other animals, and should be treated specially, even when dead. Or, if they don't need to be treated specially when dead, then why treat them specially at any other point? I guess this legislation is a way to rationally erode the obsolete emotional reasons for treating the human body as something special.
- mises 7y agoI'm not sure what you're arguing here. I believe humans are sacred and ought to be treated as such, even when dead.
- yters 7y agoI'm pointing out the legislation is incompatible with the view the human body is sacred.
- ncallaway 7y ago> Either humans are more sacred than other animals, and should be treated specially, even when dead This legislation doesn't force anyone to be composted after their death. It gives a families and loved ones a new option, without taking away any options. As such we haven't taken away anyone's options to treat humans specially, or however they wanted to be treated. As long as it's safe and doesn't introduce significant negative externalities, I fail to see why not granting more choices would be a bad idea.
- yters 7y agoYes, that's my point. The legislation treats this as an emotional, opinion issue. Not an issue where there is a truth of the matter.