(July 1, 2014 at 3:02 pm)blackout94 Wrote:I'm not comparing animals to humans. I'm saying there's no magi-special quality about humans that makes them more deserving of moral consideration than other animals. In fact, the idea that humans are morally unique is a Biblical idea-- God put all the animals here and placed Mankind over all.Quote:Given a child rapist and a placid cow, I'd prefer to apply the bolt gun to the first, and the state-sponsored sustained existence to the other. It seems to me irrational that people who are not productive members of society, or who have brought harm to society, have any protection at all, while animals which have done no harm are kept in inhumane conditions with little liberty or hope of pleasure, then slaughtered to feed a population that is already grossly overfed.
The difference is you can't eat the child rapist since cannibalism is illegal, you can eat the cow so there goes a big difference. If you support capital punishment or not, that's up to your ideas, but the reason both get killed are difference, cows are killed for feeding and utility, humans are killed as a last resource because they are dangerous to society. You make a big mistake in your argue, you are justifying animals protection by comparing them to humans, it's ok to justify both pulling the trigger on the rapist and not pulling it on the cow, but do it trough sustainable arguments and not trough comparing humans (as rational animals) with other species, since there is a huge difference between us and them, starting with our intelligence and reason, skills and the fact humans are the only animal that cannot survive in the wild if left alone (you'll notice all newborns from animals possess basic survival skills)
The cases you've listed-- intelligence and survival-- are irrelevant. Who cares if a baby can survive on its own? I'm talking about killing criminals. As for intelligence-- so what? Can we establish an IQ line by which a human should or shouldn't be protected? Are we free to kill severely retarded people?
Your argument has been used with people-- specifically that white people are intrinsically better than others because _______ (they have souls, they are more intelligent, might makes right, etc.) We do not accept this magi-special uniqueness of white people, because it's clearly defined by the party in power for them to justify acts that benefit them.
How confident are you that we aren't just abusing moral definitions because including animals in our moral treatment would be inconvenient?
