(July 29, 2013 at 4:54 pm)Slave Wrote: Like I said, personhood is up for debate, as this is a matter of philosophical inquiry and is not rooted in scientific fact.Fair enough and I will back up my stated opinions, showing you my logic for your consideration.
Your assertion that human rights only pertain to 'people' and not humans is your assertion.
Premise #1: The brain is where we experience reality.
Can we agree on that? Neuroscience still hasn't explained everything but we do know that it's in the brain where we gather sensory data from nervous system inputs. It's where we process said data. It's where we store and access memory. It's where we process our thoughts.
Exactly what consciousness is and what causes it remains a mystery but I think it's fair enough to state that the brain is a critical component. Can we agree on that?
So far I'm still within objective, empirical data?
Premise #2: We do not have moral obligations toward inanimate objects.
Understand, I'm not mocking you or anyone else here. I'm just going carefully step-by-step. With that in mind...
You can't be rude to a rock. You can't be cruel to a tree. You can't hurt a bacteria cell's feelings. The last two are technically "living" according to biology but we still can make these statements, right? Hold that thought for a premise I'll make later...
I'm venturing into philosophy here, I admit, but can we agree on this?
Premise #3: Discussions of morals and ethics are discussions about our obligations toward one another as sentient beings.
I'm wading deeper into philosophy on this point but this is how I evaluate questions of morality. At this point, theists have in the past tried to cloud the issue. "Oh yeah, well what about animal rights? What about the needs of the many vs. the few? What about personal liberty vs. the needs for community order? C'mon, *snap, snap* answer them all quickly and satisfactorily or therefore Jesus!!!!"
There are a lot of questions we can explore on where lines can be drawn but the basic idea I'm trying to get across is that "morality" is about how we treat other beings.
Can we agree so far?
Premise #4: Morality is not restricted to classification of species.
Throwing a kitten off a cliff for fun is often seen as wrongdoing, would you agree? Wanton cruelty toward other animals who don't have the same higher brain function but are nonetheless beings that appear to experience pain, fear and personal connection is often viewed as wrong. Now we can get bogged down into "is hunting for food immoral when you could be a vegan?" or "is experimenting on animals to find cures for human diseases wrong?" but my basic point is that we have moral consideration for non-humans.
Still with me?
Question: What's the distinction based on?
Why do we have moral obligations toward kittens and not trees? Or bacteria cells? All three are "alive", are they not?
Why do some people feel it's OK to pull the plug on a brain-dead chronically ill patient but not OK to execute a retarded person so they "won't be a burden"?
Answer: the brain.
The brain is where we experience reality (premise 1). Morality is a a function of how we treat one another (premise 3). Morality does not extend to mindless beings or inanimate objects (premise 2). Assertions of species classification is irrelevant to our discussion (premise 4).
Hence, my assertion:
No brain = no being = no moral issue here = no rights to life
Discuss.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist