(April 2, 2014 at 12:56 pm)rasetsu Wrote: But I think it's more a problem that my explanation is using 'evolution' and 'genetic compatibility' as a short-hand for a bunch of processes that need to be unfurled to show an actual rational basis for shared self-interest. If we have to decide whether to let a denisovans or a Yahweh into the framework, that would be decided on whether those processes line up in that case.
What shared interest do I have with conducting experiments on people who are conscious but mentally disabled from birth? They have no chance of recovery and are also familyless and friendless, so no-one to care for them. We could make a whole load of medical advances. I will never be mentally disabled from birth, yet I care for their welfare none-the-less. I can explain that this might be because I have evolved to value humans. But this is very different from a justification.
I justify giving this person rights because they are conscious, and on this basis animals too must be given rights.
