»

[Rob_86]

Originally Posted by Stichman

No there's not, because I'm not suggesting we should give rights to babies on their ability to feel pain, etc. I'm suggesting that they have greater rights because thay are humans.




Argh! Species does not sit in those categories in the slightest. It is a massive jump to say because we treat humans equally regardless of their charcteristics that we should trreat other species in this way.

I still don't understand this basic point; if we are simply animals then surely we shouldn't feel morally obliged to not kill other animals? If we are simply the dominant species then it is in our nature to eat any other animal if it serves our interests. I don't think there has been any valid argument as to why this is even a moral issue in that respect.

<I'm suggesting that they have greater rights because thay are humans.>

This would be great if you could justify why this is a reason. If it isn't right to dicriminate on physical or intellectual terms in cases of race or sex, then neither is it in the other physical or intellectual boundaries. You are sort of proving the point that we give humans the correct rights (mostly) but deny other creatures our moral respect on irrelevant grounds. It is completely arbitrary to keep saying 'because they are human', as the right to life relates to life, not being human. Dead humans aren't granted a right to life lol. So long as there is a moral difference between a dead and living humans, then it is life that matters and not the physical categorisation of it.

<Argh! Species does not sit in those categories in the slightest. It is a massive jump to say because we treat humans equally regardless of their charcteristics that we should trreat other species in this way.>

I don't think we should treat animals and humans equally, I think we should treat inidividuals with equal claims to rights equally in those rights. That's a pretty logical way to look at it I would say. You're the one claiming that rights are given to humans 'just because' they are human. We don't lick lollipops just because they are lollipops, we lick them as they taste good (yes, that is a weird analogy). Similarly, we don't give humans rights as they are human, we give them rights as they are each individuals deserving of rights.

<I still don't understand this basic point; if we are simply animals then surely we shouldn't feel morally obliged to not kill other animals? If we are simply the dominant species then it is in our nature to eat any other animal if it serves our interests. I don't think there has been any valid argument as to why this is even a moral issue in that respect.>

This point has been answered a couple of times. Firstly, what is the exact argument you're trying to put across? We've already said that something being natural doesn't make it right, or a thing to be continued. We have also said that there are many humans who can not respect our rights, and that they still deserve rights - so it isn't about being able to act morally which grants a creature moral respect. So if you take these two points out of your paragraph, I don't think there is a lot left. It is appealing to have this idea of humans being top of a food chain, and it being natural to eat other creatures - but under scrutiny this argument does not hold up particularly well given what we know about moral logic, and what we know about animal life.