(March 15, 2015 at 3:20 am)robvalue Wrote:
So I guess what I'm saying is... Short of some extremely unlikely scenario involving a burning building where I have to make a snap decision based largely on instinct, I don't particularly value human life more than animal life. In fact, I hate the human race as a whole because we are capable of evil on a massive scale, we can and do cause suffering to other animals in ways that "lesser" species simply never could.
But please understand, that is not to say I devalue humans, it's saying that I value animals much more than most people would.I know this is unusual, but that is how I am. I would do my best to stop suffering to any form of life, and I would try and help a human just as much as anyone else.
Unusual or not, I am just curious about how you see things.
Particularly the part about "[You] don't particularly value human life more than animal life." I am curious about a great many things if this is truly what you believe.
Disclaimer: the following question is not a "set up". There is no "priest in the bushes" waiting to pop up with a "gotcha!". I just want to know how your above thought applies to several important areas:
On what basis then, is there a "moral" distinction between owning animals for the sake of work (e.g. dogs, horses, oxen, cattle, etc.) and owning humans for the sake of work? This is not to say that I think such a distinction is impossible on your view, I just want to know how you derive that distinction. If a human is not inherently more valuable/dignified/whatever than the other animals, what is different about the injustice of slavery and the legitimate ownership of animals?