3 ms·

I.e. you're saying that legislation regulating how humanity behaves towards non-human creatures inherently doesn't fit in with the concept of person? Seems like

by sho_hn 12y ago

I.e. you're saying that legislation regulating how humanity behaves towards non-human creatures inherently doesn't fit in with the concept of person? Seems like sort of a pattern reuse/layering issue to me. Also, given that all species on the planet exist in the same evolutionary tree, I guess I find species distinctions somewhat arbitrary. What's the meaningful biological difference between a chimp and a not very smart human, really? It seems like a lot of the same stuff to me. Why do arguments end at species boundaries? They may be a legally uncooperative population, sure, but that can happen with groups of humans, too. I'm not applying for sainthood here or anything; I'm a meat-eater, and I don't lose sleep at night over it - yet, anyway. But that I don't feel guilty doesn't necessarily make it right; I find these things worth mulling.

icebraining 12y ago
you're saying that legislation regulating how humanity behaves towards non-human creatures inherently doesn't fit in with the concept of person? No, I'm saying that the concept of person is inherently linked to humanity (incl. human society) and therefore non-human creatures are only judged as "people" if they can approximate humanity to some level. The fact that we find it natural that "smart" non-humans like chimpanzees and dolphins are better candidates to being classified as persons is evidence of that: after all, why should smartness/intelligence be the classifier? It's because that's what distinguishes us. Also, given that all species on the planet exist in the same evolutionary tree, I guess I find species distinctions somewhat arbitrary. What's the meaningful biological difference between a chimp and a not very smart human, really? That's like asking what's the meaningful difference in terms of physics between a human and a rock, since we're both bags of carbon. Law simply isn't designed to work at the biological level. It's a social construction.

by sho_hn 12y ago

icebraining 12y ago

you're saying that legislation regulating how humanity behaves towards non-human creatures inherently doesn't fit in with the concept of person? No, I'm saying that the concept of person is inherently linked to humanity (incl. human society) and therefore non-human creatures are only judged as "people" if they can approximate humanity to some level. The fact that we find it natural that "smart" non-humans like chimpanzees and dolphins are better candidates to being classified as persons is evidence of that: after all, why should smartness/intelligence be the classifier? It's because that's what distinguishes us. Also, given that all species on the planet exist in the same evolutionary tree, I guess I find species distinctions somewhat arbitrary. What's the meaningful biological difference between a chimp and a not very smart human, really? That's like asking what's the meaningful difference in terms of physics between a human and a rock, since we're both bags of carbon. Law simply isn't designed to work at the biological level. It's a social construction.