Veganism

[Angrboda]

If you're arguing that things that aren't identical should in some sense be "counted" as identical, then you're abandoning Liebniz's law to speak incoherently.

I'm not saying that things that aren't identical could still be counted as identical. I'm asking where the line is. As I asked, what counts as being human? You're yet to answer that, but you seem to think that I'm the one with a problem.

What counts as human is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a distinct thing that being human is. As long as there is, your question is a red herring.

You are essentially asking when we should treat something that is not human "as-if" it were human. That doesn't seem like a problem with either Liebniz's law or my application of it.

[Disagreeable]

I'm not saying that things that aren't identical could still be counted as identical. I'm asking where the line is. As I asked, what counts as being human? You're yet to answer that, but you seem to think that I'm the one with a problem.

What counts as human is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a distinct thing that being human is.  As long as there is, your question is a red herring.

When I'm asking what counts as being human I'm asking "which things qualify as being human beings?".

You left open the possibility that the property of being human is what makes it okay to kill and eat animals but not okay to kill and eat humans. I'm asking what makes having that property true.

[Disagreeable]

You are essentially asking when we should treat something that is not human "as-if" it were human.  That doesn't seem like a problem with either Liebniz's law or my application of it.

Well if we decide that something that we don't count as human ought to be counted as if it were human we may then end up revising our definition of "human".

Again, the key question is: What is a human being? Asking that question doesn't violate Leibniz's law at all. And changing your definition of "human" doesn't violate it either.

[Angrboda]

What counts as human is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a distinct thing that being human is.  As long as there is, your question is a red herring.

When I'm asking what counts as being human I'm asking "which things qualify as being human beings?".

You left open the possibility that the property of being human is what makes it okay to kill and eat animals but not okay to kill and eat humans. I'm asking what makes having that property true.

Common usage of the word human implies that the property of being human exists. It matters not how that property is determined to be satisfied. If you aren't abiding by common usage, you are equivocating.

[Disagreeable]

When I'm asking what counts as being human I'm asking "which things qualify as being human beings?".

You left open the possibility that the property of being human is what makes it okay to kill and eat animals but not okay to kill and eat humans. I'm asking what makes having that property true.

Common usage of the word human implies that the property of being human exists.  It matters not how that property is determined to be satisfied.  If you aren't abiding by common usage, you are equivocating.

Not abiding by common usage doesn't necessarily entail equivocation. Equivocation involves conflating at least two different ways of defining a word, it isn't merely using a non-standard definition.

There are deeper questions to what something is than merely going by common usage or a mere dictionary definition. Even if being a member of the species homo sapiens, for example, is what it means to be human there are still questions about where we draw the line between being a member of homo sapiens and not being a member of homo sapiens.

But even if we don't ask those questions. We can simply accept that being human is, for example, being a member of the species homo sapiens. If that is what being human is *and* if the property of being human is what makes it not acceptable to kill and eat a creature, and the property of not being human is what makes it acceptable to kill and eat a creature, then this entails that it's acceptable to kill and eat a creature very, very similar to a human that isn't technically of the same species (homo sapiens). So the question then becomes: is that truly acceptable? If not, then we may have to revise our standard of what makes it acceptable/unacceptable to kill and eat a creature.

[Disagreeable]

Is it morally permissible to kill and eat chimpanzees or bonobos?

If not then it isn't the property of being human that makes killing and eating a creature morally impermissible.

[Angrboda]

Common usage of the word human implies that the property of being human exists.  It matters not how that property is determined to be satisfied.  If you aren't abiding by common usage, you are equivocating.

Not abiding by common usage doesn't necessarily entail equivocation.

I never said that it did.

But even if we don't ask those questions. We can simply accept that being human is, for example, being a member of the species homo sapiens. If that is what being human is *and* if the property of being human is what makes it not acceptable to kill and eat a creature and the property of not being human is what makes it acceptable to kill and eat a creature then this entails that it's acceptable to kill and eat a creature very, very similar to a human that isn't technically of the same species. So the question then becomes: is that truly acceptable? If not, then we may have to revise our standard of what makes it acceptable/unacceptable to kill and eat a creature.

That's not what I was doing. I was pointing out that as long as there is a category of being human, then the ethical question lies elsewhere than debating what does or doesn't make one human. Common usage implies that there is such a thing. For any specific ethical question, if that is the case, the particulars do not really matter. The problem is that the questions of any substance lie deeper than just twiddling the knobs regarding what is a human, yet you are obsessed with what isn't really much of a question as you, ostensibly, believe that one can resolve the ethical questions by resolving this question. It does not and cannot.

And what you wrote doesn't even remotely follow. If being human makes an organism's unjustified killing immoral, it is not entailed that such with something not human is also immoral. That doesn't obviously follow which suggests you are making assumptions beyond anything you've argued or has been accepted.

[Disagreeable]

I never said that it did.

Then why did you say that I was equivocating? You seemed to suggest that I was equivocating if I wasn't going by common usage. If that's not what you were suggesting then I don't see why you made a point about me possibly equivocating.

That's not what I was doing.  I was pointing out that as long as there is a category of being human, then the ethical question lies elsewhere than debating what does or doesn't make one human.

If whether a creature has or doesn't have the property of being human is what determines whether it's morally permissible or impermissible to eat such a creature then whether a creature actually is human or not *is* morally relevant.

what you wrote doesn't even remotely follow.  If being human makes an organism's unjustified killing immoral, it is not entailed that such with something not human is also immoral.

That's' not what I said.

You seem to be repeatedly interpreting me uncharitably.

To go back to what I said, with some added emphasis and a couple of clarifying comments:

if the property of being human is what makes it not acceptable to kill and eat a creature and the property of not being human is what makes it acceptable to kill and eat a creature then this entails that it's acceptable to kill and eat a creature very, very similar to a human that isn't technically of the same [human] species . [Assuming, of course, that having the property of 'being human' is interchangeable with being a member of the human species].

[Disagreeable]

What's more, this exchange is rather suspect:

If you aren't abiding by common usage, you are equivocating.

Not abiding by common usage doesn't necessarily entail equivocation.

I never said that it did.

[Fake Messiah]

Is it morally permissible to kill and eat chimpanzees or bonobos?

It is, but why is it like that? Because people agreed to it, and people are the ones who set the rules. Although very few people eat chimps, probably because they look too much like humans.

Then there are also societies where it is morally acceptable to eat humans.

Also, I remember some 20 years ago there were images circling on the net of Chinese people cooking and eating human fetuses. I mean Albert Fish said he always wanted to try human flesh after hearing about cannibalism in China.