5 ms·

I can hunt and eat a deer, which has roughly the sentience level than my 6-month old baby. Are you saying we should confer more rights on the deer, or less on

I can hunt and eat a deer, which has roughly the sentience level than my 6-month old baby. Are you saying we should confer more rights on the deer, or less on my child?

trhway 11y ago
i said it clearly - we should confer equal rights on both independently of species, including the specific right of not being killed. To "zigzero" below: your desire to kill a highly sentient living being just to satisfy your urge for some peculiar taste you like is ridiculous. Mommy, i want a candy, a-aaa-a! Time to grow up.
- sigzero 11y ago
  Really? So now I cannot hunt deer for food? Please. That argument is ridiculous.
  - Zirro 11y ago
    Unless you live in a society where hunting for food is essential to ensure your own survival, I believe a lot of people are prepared to disagree with you.
    - notdonspaulding 11y ago
      I've heard this argument before, but I don't quite understand the logic. I really struggle to come up with any other ethic I hold where it doesn't break down: - Unless you live in a society where raping young boys is essential to your survival, it's wrong. - The racism of the past was OK, but as a society we've moved past the need for it, so now it's morally wrong. What's an example of another moral or ethic that you would say follows this pattern of being malleable across space and time? Is this just ends-justify-the-means moral relativism?
      - Houshalter 11y ago
        What about animal testing? Most people think torturing animals is wrong, but are ok with it when it is necessary to save humans. In fact I can think of many examples where something is a crime unless it is necessary for survival. In law there is even a concept of "necessity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity) that says it's ok to commit some crimes in some circumstances when it is necessary, e.g. self defense.
      - trhway 11y ago
        > Is this just ends-justify-the-means moral relativism? no. At some point we, as a species and civilization, mature to the point where we understand that "thing A" is unacceptable. It happened to slavery, raping (violently or statutory) children, etc... Actual stopping of such things takes time and organized effort and practically happens in stages. It is just naturally happens what the last, most hardest, place of getting rid of "thing A" is where that thing is performed for survival. We know that it is wrong, and many people work to stop it from happening, it just takes more time and effort, and for the time being in such cases for political reasons "exceptions" are sometimes granted - a tradeoff made to minimize evil until that evil is completely eradicated. So in short - it isn't "an evil thing stops being evil when for survival", instead it is "an evil thing is much harder to get rid off when it is for survival".
  - solipsism 11y ago
    The concept of vegetarianism is new to you? Where do you live anyway?
  - Falling3 11y ago
    Are you going to explain how it's ridiculous or it just is because you don't like it? It's incredible how all logic goes out the window in a group of otherwise very intelligent people when the topic of animal rights comes up.
solipsism 11y ago
You asked others to justify their views. I'm curious how you justify yours rationally. By what rational basis is a deer less worthy of (any particular) rights than a fetus? Do you argue that the human species is special and distinct from other animals in some categorical way that leads to the establishment of these rights for any human individual? It seems obvious to many people that we're just mammals, more capable than other mammals in some ways and less capable in other ways, and that all of our differences are more quantitative than qualitative, and that any line you draw ("You must be this smart to live") is arbitrary and can't be justified rationally. Do you argue that you should grant more rights to an individual of your own species than to one of a different species? That premise is hard to argue with, but it seems absurd if you consider a hypothetical planet with two intelligent species. I understand that the primacy of homo sapiens seems obvious to most people, but most people don't ever bother to question this idea. Consider that most vegetarians and vegans have probably thought about this topic more than you have. Obviously that doesn't prove them right and you wrong -- but by the way you posed your challenge it seems like you expected there to be no rational response. So put yourself in the shoes of a vegetarian for a minute and struggle with your own worldview for a second: how do you rationalize your worldview? EDIT: s/sentient species/intelligent species/
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  > By what rational basis is a deer less worthy > of (any particular) rights than a fetus? Because the deer is not a person, while a fetus is. I hold this to be more than mere tautology. I believe it's the more rational, intellectually consistent viewpoint. > Do you argue that the human species is special and > distinct from other animals in some categorical way <snip>? Yes. > Do you argue that you should grant more rights > to an individual of your own species than to one > of a different species? That premise is hard to > argue with, but it seems absurd if you consider a > hypothetical planet with two intelligent species. In your hypothetical, I don't think I would argue for granting more rights to my own species. It's hard to say, because I've never been introduced to either of these hypothetical species. I will say that I don't worry too much when the rationality of my viewpoints is called into question by a wildly hypothetical corner case. (I don't see a clear analogy between your hypothetical and my original question). > ...we're just mammals, more capable than other > mammals in some ways and less capable in other ways, > and that all of our differences are more > quantitative than qualitative... > ... > I understand that the primacy of homo sapiens seems > obvious to most people... Would you consider the fact that a human fetus can grow up to write a play, learn to sing, discover electricity, debate ethics, and express incredibly deep emotion to be qualitative or quantitative differences from chimps or dolphins? Even if you consider those to be quantitative differences, the quantitative difference is huge. I'm not advocating for animal cruelty or torture at all. But if we're all just mammals, why do we care about the ethics of being cruel vs. humane at all? Apes will never grant each other due process of law. If we're so much like them, why do we care?

I can hunt and eat a deer, which has roughly the sentience level than my 6-month old baby. Are you saying we should confer more rights on the deer, or less on my child?

trhway 11y ago

i said it clearly - we should confer equal rights on both independently of species, including the specific right of not being killed. To "zigzero" below: your desire to kill a highly sentient living being just to satisfy your urge for some peculiar taste you like is ridiculous. Mommy, i want a candy, a-aaa-a! Time to grow up.

sigzero 11y ago
Really? So now I cannot hunt deer for food? Please. That argument is ridiculous.
- Zirro 11y ago
  Unless you live in a society where hunting for food is essential to ensure your own survival, I believe a lot of people are prepared to disagree with you.
  - notdonspaulding 11y ago
    I've heard this argument before, but I don't quite understand the logic. I really struggle to come up with any other ethic I hold where it doesn't break down: - Unless you live in a society where raping young boys is essential to your survival, it's wrong. - The racism of the past was OK, but as a society we've moved past the need for it, so now it's morally wrong. What's an example of another moral or ethic that you would say follows this pattern of being malleable across space and time? Is this just ends-justify-the-means moral relativism?
    - Houshalter 11y ago
      What about animal testing? Most people think torturing animals is wrong, but are ok with it when it is necessary to save humans. In fact I can think of many examples where something is a crime unless it is necessary for survival. In law there is even a concept of "necessity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity) that says it's ok to commit some crimes in some circumstances when it is necessary, e.g. self defense.
    - trhway 11y ago
      > Is this just ends-justify-the-means moral relativism? no. At some point we, as a species and civilization, mature to the point where we understand that "thing A" is unacceptable. It happened to slavery, raping (violently or statutory) children, etc... Actual stopping of such things takes time and organized effort and practically happens in stages. It is just naturally happens what the last, most hardest, place of getting rid of "thing A" is where that thing is performed for survival. We know that it is wrong, and many people work to stop it from happening, it just takes more time and effort, and for the time being in such cases for political reasons "exceptions" are sometimes granted - a tradeoff made to minimize evil until that evil is completely eradicated. So in short - it isn't "an evil thing stops being evil when for survival", instead it is "an evil thing is much harder to get rid off when it is for survival".
- solipsism 11y ago
  The concept of vegetarianism is new to you? Where do you live anyway?
- Falling3 11y ago
  Are you going to explain how it's ridiculous or it just is because you don't like it? It's incredible how all logic goes out the window in a group of otherwise very intelligent people when the topic of animal rights comes up.

solipsism 11y ago

You asked others to justify their views. I'm curious how you justify yours rationally. By what rational basis is a deer less worthy of (any particular) rights than a fetus? Do you argue that the human species is special and distinct from other animals in some categorical way that leads to the establishment of these rights for any human individual? It seems obvious to many people that we're just mammals, more capable than other mammals in some ways and less capable in other ways, and that all of our differences are more quantitative than qualitative, and that any line you draw ("You must be this smart to live") is arbitrary and can't be justified rationally. Do you argue that you should grant more rights to an individual of your own species than to one of a different species? That premise is hard to argue with, but it seems absurd if you consider a hypothetical planet with two intelligent species. I understand that the primacy of homo sapiens seems obvious to most people, but most people don't ever bother to question this idea. Consider that most vegetarians and vegans have probably thought about this topic more than you have. Obviously that doesn't prove them right and you wrong -- but by the way you posed your challenge it seems like you expected there to be no rational response. So put yourself in the shoes of a vegetarian for a minute and struggle with your own worldview for a second: how do you rationalize your worldview? EDIT: s/sentient species/intelligent species/

notdonspaulding 11y ago
> By what rational basis is a deer less worthy > of (any particular) rights than a fetus? Because the deer is not a person, while a fetus is. I hold this to be more than mere tautology. I believe it's the more rational, intellectually consistent viewpoint. > Do you argue that the human species is special and > distinct from other animals in some categorical way <snip>? Yes. > Do you argue that you should grant more rights > to an individual of your own species than to one > of a different species? That premise is hard to > argue with, but it seems absurd if you consider a > hypothetical planet with two intelligent species. In your hypothetical, I don't think I would argue for granting more rights to my own species. It's hard to say, because I've never been introduced to either of these hypothetical species. I will say that I don't worry too much when the rationality of my viewpoints is called into question by a wildly hypothetical corner case. (I don't see a clear analogy between your hypothetical and my original question). > ...we're just mammals, more capable than other > mammals in some ways and less capable in other ways, > and that all of our differences are more > quantitative than qualitative... > ... > I understand that the primacy of homo sapiens seems > obvious to most people... Would you consider the fact that a human fetus can grow up to write a play, learn to sing, discover electricity, debate ethics, and express incredibly deep emotion to be qualitative or quantitative differences from chimps or dolphins? Even if you consider those to be quantitative differences, the quantitative difference is huge. I'm not advocating for animal cruelty or torture at all. But if we're all just mammals, why do we care about the ethics of being cruel vs. humane at all? Apes will never grant each other due process of law. If we're so much like them, why do we care?