Quote:Why is sapience the cutoff? This is special pleading
No, it isn't. I explained you why. You need to be theorethically able to claim rights to have rights. Rocks can't have rights. Non sapient animals can't have rights.
Why should there be another cutoff? If you think that rights exist, then only those who have the possibility to claim them can have them.
Quote:And do you not bestow rights on some creatures which cannot claim them for themselves?
Only on those creatures that have the possibility of claiming them, at least in theory (like humans who don't have the actual ability to do so).
Quote:Do you recognize any right claimed?
No, but the possibility of making claims is a prerequisite to the recognition (or not) of such claims. And there are rights that belong to all sapient beings.
Quote:Actually most animals are sentient beings. You're thinking sapience, which is again an arbitrary special pleading.
I confused the terms, but the general meaning was clear from my previous sentences. Yes I meant sapient beings. Although animald still have a different status from "things".
And even if human had no rights against god, god would still be a vicious bastard. Humans have feelings, and causing pain to innocent creatures for trivial reasons is what defines "vicious bastard".
A man who tortures kittens for a bet is a vicious bastard even if kittens don't have rights, after all.
