3 ms·

> Different people have different standards. This is about as weaselly of a response as you could have given. That different people have different standards is

> Different people have different standards. This is about as weaselly of a response as you could have given. That different people have different standards is irrelevant. What matters is the truth of the matter. Notice that I didn't say the truth is always known, easy to know, or even knowable, but there's a stark difference between the idea that there is a truth of a matter and "it all depends on whom you ask", i.e., there's no fact of the matter, just "different standards". The Nazi comparison is just poisoning the well (with the tacit presumption that Nazi experiments are evil). I won't dwell on it. Pointing out assumptions, even when correct (I'm not saying you've properly identified them, only even if you have), does little to advance any argument if its not followed up with some effort to show those assumptions are false or dubious. The question here is about what is morally permissible in human-animal relations. Rights enter the picture as well. So one could most certainly argue, as Oderberg[0] has, that we are not permitted to be cruel to animals, but that animals nonetheless do not have rights given the preconditions he identifies for rights. Indeed, pre-Cartesian thought is in line with this thinking (i.e., that cruelty toward animals is immoral; note that it was Descartes who reduced animals to unconscious, dumb meat machines). Apart from that, there is something absurd about the attempt to cast the use of animals as some dreadfully immoral act without having made humans special in the first place. Nature is full of exploitation that doesn't seem to bother those campaigning for animal rights. The praying mantis that consumes prey alive. The crocodile that rips prey apart in a terrifying display of beastly power. The emerald cockroach wasp that uses another animal as a host for its young. Primates can also be quite nasty, tearing the limbs off living, defenseless young members of their own species. Are any of these animals being immoral, at least in those cases where the gruesome action in question is not natural to their survival? If you answer "no", you must give an account of why humans are special. I submit that what makes us different in this respect is that first, we have the capacity to understand what we're going and its immorality, and second, we have the capacity to choose otherwise. [0] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUiecnJuOWpJSzFOaDg/edit https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUiecnJuOWpJSzFOaDg/...

srean 6y ago
> The question here is about what is morally permissible in human-animal relations. The point is that the answer depends on whom you ask when you ask. Blanket discouragement of historically relevant example, such as Mengele is just censorship to make things look rosy. Are you disputing the fact that human experiments were considered eminently permissible by a large population of people ? If not, then how is such a fact not germane to the discussion. > Nature is full of exploitation that doesn't seem to bother those campaigning for animal rights. Judge, why do you want to put me in prison, so many others murder too. > I submit that what makes us different in this respect is that first, we have the capacity to understand what we're going and its immorality, and second, we have the capacity to choose otherwise. Exactly.

srean 6y ago

> The question here is about what is morally permissible in human-animal relations. The point is that the answer depends on whom you ask when you ask. Blanket discouragement of historically relevant example, such as Mengele is just censorship to make things look rosy. Are you disputing the fact that human experiments were considered eminently permissible by a large population of people ? If not, then how is such a fact not germane to the discussion. > Nature is full of exploitation that doesn't seem to bother those campaigning for animal rights. Judge, why do you want to put me in prison, so many others murder too. > I submit that what makes us different in this respect is that first, we have the capacity to understand what we're going and its immorality, and second, we have the capacity to choose otherwise. Exactly.