(February 2, 2012 at 3:16 pm)genkaus Wrote: Now we are getting somewhere.
Yes, people can rationalize damn near everything. Which is why, in order to separate the rationalized from the truly rational, we need objective standards.
Right now, I'm not free to kill and eat anyone I want because of the constitutional "right to life" given to every human being. But is this right given arbitrarily or is there a rational basis?
If it is arbitrary, what, other that popular vote, would stop it from changing to the way it was in the past? When the right was given only to the religious people or only to men or only to whites?
If there is an objective reason, what is it? What objective reason is there that this right is given exclusively to human beings and not to any other animal or plant?
What you are describing is the question of personhood. At what point is an entity considered a person, and does that entity necessarily have to be human? The most prominent person I can think of regarding this whole issue of animal rights is Peter Singer. You would probably find his work interesting.
I myself completely gave up on trying to develop a sound position on the entire issue of animal rights. I have other things to figure out at this juncture. Was that a completely arbitrary decision partially fueled by how much I hated living a vegan lifestyle? Yep. But I just can't decide what I think about the issue, and I'm done "erring on the cautious side."
I am now erring in favor of my taste buds.