(August 22, 2011 at 7:38 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: And many are not capable at all. Which is his point -- it is an inconsistent measure of worth or value and is subjective up the wazoo. Kinda like Skeptic's rationale for "reducing suffering."
My reply was not meant to signify my agreement with Skeptic, as I find lifestyles like his border on fanatical. What I mean is that comparing animal compassion to human compassion is like comparing male compassion to female compassion. They are all the same things. We are animals; they are animals. Some of them are compassionate. Some of us are compassionate. It really has naught to do with the species as much as the individual animal. It seemed that he was implying that animals (apart from humans) are not compassionate, which was what I disagree with.
(August 22, 2011 at 7:38 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Much like sentience is a rather subjective and inconsistent "measure" that prompts the question, why should we care?
Sentience is really immeasurable except in humans. For all we know, even the smallest creatures are self aware. I agree it is completely inconsistent and subjective. The question of why we should care is also subjective. It is also too all encompassing, as we have seen clearly in this thread that people pick and choose what it is convenient for them to care about when it comes to animal rights. "Survival of the cutest" and all of that.
