Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[russ_watters]

So, if you are going to say that you can't know that the cat hates going to the vet, in order to be consider, you must say that you can't know that other humans hate anything.

You don't think the fact that you can ask other humans and get an answer is important there?

Even setting that aside, if you could ask the cat, what do you think it would say about killing a mouse for example?

 

[Dissident Dan]

You don't think the fact that you can ask other humans and get an answer is important there?

If I accept that a) other humans are sentient and b) other humans are often honest, then I would conclude that I can determine more specifically what other humans are experiencing than I could what a cat does (If a cat is sentient, and I hold that it is) due to the more-developed human language. Our more complex languages allow me to understand more precisely the range of human experiences, if I accept that they are sentient. However, the more complex language itself is not a difference that logically is used for distinction between sentient and nonsentient in the first place.

Of course, there are times when people do not use words when I can determine pretty precisely what a person is feeling: for example, after hammering one's thumb and letting out a scream, even though the person did not use any words, I can determine that that person hurt his thumb. This is a more direct indicator than any premeditated words that came out of someone's mouth.

Even setting that aside, if you could ask the cat, what do you think it would say about killing a mouse for example?

It doesn't matter. The cat doesn't have to conform to ethical standards to be treated ethically. Ethics is not reciprocal. If the cat has the ability to experience, then the cat is rightfully deserving of ethical behavior. It is irrelevant whether or not the cat is acting in a way such that if a human acted that way, I would consider the human acting unethically, especially since the cat does not have the intelligence to understand the idea of ethicality on the level that a human does. Given that I see widespread unethicality in humans (and I still try to act ethically towards them), how could I ever expect a creature that is as comparatively simple-minded as a cat to conform?

 

[turin]

Of course, there are times when people do not use words when I can determine pretty precisely what a person is feeling: for example, after hammering one's thumb and letting out a scream, even though the person did not use any words, I can determine that that person hurt his thumb. This is a more direct indicator than any premeditated words that came out of someone's mouth.

I would agree only if you had hit your own thumb with a hammer once in your life (or had a similar inflicted injury) and you yourself had responded in a similar manner. Otherwise, you would either just think that people who hit themselves with hammers and scream are lunatics that should be locked up in pink padded rooms, or you would have to rely on your father's words of wisdom, "Don't hit your thumb with the hammer; it hurts like hell." But the latter would be relying on the "c" word.

Besides, this is not the same kind of issue, IMO. The pain from the hammer is immediate and superficial. I have very little doubt that my cat would experience a very similar (if not identical) pain if I whacked it's paw with a hammer. Thoughts, emotions, and other manner of meditated motivation are more gradual, permanent and often unrevealed.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

You should eat meat because you want to. My moral code has nothing against meat. In fact, I have nothing against cannibalism either. So let's just have a big meat orgy.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Besides, this is not the same kind of issue, IMO. The pain from the hammer is immediate and superficial. I have very little doubt that my cat would experience a very similar (if not identical) pain if I whacked it's paw with a hammer. Thoughts, emotions, and other manner of meditated motivation are more gradual, permanent and often unrevealed.

Emotion is more permanent? I don't think so.

Can you tell me what the difference is between these "emotions" and mere "pain" is and how it is important?

 

[turin]

Dissident Dan,
I cannot tell you what your own opinion is. If you do not agree that hate is more permanent than the pain from a hammer, then I do not think that there is any way to convince you otherwise. My arguments are based fundamentally on introspection and subordinately on induction. If you tell me that the pain of whacking your thumb with a hammer is no different than the feeling of hate, then I must accept either that this is your truth or that you are lying. The latter is not productive to the analysis. The former is incontrovertible to me.

In short, I consider this issue intransigent.

I feel I should also add that it is not my intention to disparage your own introspection or contribution to the discussion. I am merely conceding your prerogative thereto.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, usually the hate feeling subsides once the object of the hate is no longer present. Also, I wasn't referring just to hate or anger, but the range of feelings that we don't call "physical" feelings--for example, the feeling of humor that makes you laugh, which is pretty short-lived.

Obvisously, each experience has its own character, and so hitting your thumb is different from hate is different from humor is different from melancholy is different from a massage. But I have yet to see some great dividing characteristic between the two types that you laid out. From what I can tell, it's merely that we perceive one type as existing in "the body" while one is existing in "the mind". Of course, this is all an illusion, as feelings of all characters reside in the brain (have you ever heard of the "phantom pains" of people who have lost limbs?). All are subjective experiences that require a conscious entity to experience them if they are to exist.

 

[ShawnD]

Last friday there was a rerun of Last Call with Carson Daily and Julia Styles was the guest (April 7, 2004). She said she was a vegan but gave that up because she wasn't feeling healthy and would just faint from time to time .

Instead of asking whether killing animals for food is wrong, ask yourself if the situation will change for the better. If vegetarianism is better, we'll eventually become vegetarians; correct? Although humans are very stubborn, we do change over time.

 

[turin]

From what I can tell, it's merely that we perceive one type as existing in "the body" while one is existing in "the mind". Of course, this is all an illusion, ... (have you ever heard of the "phantom pains" of people who have lost limbs?). All are subjective experiences that require a conscious entity to experience them if they are to exist.

I totally agree. Thus the impass. Perhaps we have different serotonin mechanisms. I am OCD. But I can't help feel a bit skeptical about the neurophysiological issue.

... feelings of all characters reside in the brain ...

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you equating the mind with the brain? What are "characters?"

 

[motai]

Instead of asking whether killing animals for food is wrong, ask yourself if the situation will change for the better. If vegetarianism is better, we'll eventually become vegetarians; correct? Although humans are very stubborn, we do change over time.

It may, it may not. Its like slavery. Slavery was used for thousands of years and even now it is occurring in odd portions of the world even though it is widely condemned by Western society.

Then again, since most animals that are sent to slaughter are penned up, wouldn't they be considered slaves held against their own will?

 

[Dissident Dan]

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you equating the mind with the brain? What are "characters?"

Yes, I am equating mind with brain. (I personally do not believe in any metaphysical mind.) By character, I meant "distinguising feature" (dictionary.com). You can replace "characters" with "types". I was not using a possessive "of", but an "of" that means "composed or made from".

What this all boils down to is that I do not see any significant or relevant difference to the different types of pains and pleasures. They are all subjective experiences that have (positive and/or negative) values, and there is no apparent use in dividing among "physical"/"psychological", complex/simple, or anything of the nature, except to note that it is harder to decipher some experiences than it is to decipher others through observation.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Last friday there was a rerun of Last Call with Carson Daily and Julia Styles was the guest (April 7, 2004). She said she was a vegan but gave that up because she wasn't feeling healthy and would just faint from time to time .

My guess is that she wasn't eating very much at all, vegan or not. It is possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet, but they are not necessarily so, and cases like her are not the norm, judging from my own experience with myself and others whom I know. I have been vegan for 2 years, and I have not had a single problem with it. I eat a varied diet with legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains. I also take a mutlivitamin.

Instead of asking whether killing animals for food is wrong, ask yourself if the situation will change for the better. If vegetarianism is better, we'll eventually become vegetarians; correct? Although humans are very stubborn, we do change over time.

1) That question is very hard to answer. None of us know the future.
2) I am concerned with making that hypothetical a reality. As such, I want to address the question of "Should we eat meat?" in the negative in order to help make the answer to the question "Will we stop eating meat?" be positive. Rather than just wondering and waiting, I want to be active in making that future happen.
3) This is a forum for intellectual curiosity, and people will ask what questions interest them.

 

[maximus]

I don't you think you can assume evolution intended us to eat meat. If we trace evolution backward for most primates, both on the Prosimian and Anthropoid sides, you find very little meat eating even among the hominoids. Chimps, who share 98% of our protein and DNA identity, only eat flesh occasionally.

this is true, though misleading. we followed in the footsteps of this typical primate behavious until at a given point of time not known exactly to this day, we strayed from the path of a true primate in the sense of a territorial, gathering herbavour (with the occasional taste of meat) to a carnivorous primate. it was the blending of these two lifestyles (the primates giving intelligence and territorialism and the carnivour line giving social cooperation and hierarchy) that made us who we are. NOTE: this version of the fossil record tale is a highly simplified interpretation.

 

[hitssquad]

Reification of g

Yes, I am equating mind with brain.

A fresh corpse may have a brain, but no mind. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the literature and discussion on reification of g.

 

[Dissident Dan]

A fresh corpse may have a brain, but no mind. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the literature and discussion on reification of g.

I don't know what you are mentioning genetic correlations to intelligence for. By brain, of course I meant functioning brain. Just as a computer does not compute without electricity, neither does a brain (and there are other things, ,of course, besides electricity needed).

Anyway, I think that we are getting off track. This tangent got started when I was referring to the fact that all experiences (feelings) are psychological in nature, and there is no categorization presented that is relevant to valueing different experiences.

The moral issue rests on the ability to experience (feel). A creature with the ability to experience deserves consideration, regardless or race, species, etc. All known methods of determining sentience (not level of cognition, but just plain existence of sentience--ability to experience) do not show a difference between humans and many other animals, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and more.

 

[hitssquad]

Iffy

One cannot use another's actions to justify one's own actions.

After all, if is the middle of life.

 

[Vance]

I am so sorry, may i ask a question as to why this thread was created and why has it lasted so long ?

I am honestly not trying spoil your fun or waning your enthusiasm for more inputs on this interesting topic, I just would like to find out a reasonable way of explaining how things are going on and to understand more about what things will get moving on later...

thank you!

 

[hitssquad]

Interspecies hedonics

I am so sorry, may i ask a question as to why this thread was created

It was created because of an observation of inconsistency between stated values and values put into action.

how things are going on

Dan summed it up in the contingency, "If humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience."


...And he continued stating this contingency, with:

"Well, I said If humans have rights, then animals have rights. As is apparent from your post, you do not believe in rights as an inherent characteristic of a person. You believe in them as some made-up part of society. In this case, you would not see the conditional that I stated as applying, since no one really has rights in the first place.

My whole point is that there are no relevant differences between humans and many other species of animals."


So, as Dan says (even though he seems to have confused the word "relevant" with the word "discrete"), where we are in this thread is we have all agreed that there is no intrinsic reason not to eat meat.

what things will get moving on later...

Later on, Dan will be enlightened as to the differences between adequate and optimal nutrition, and why a society and its most socially responsible members might choose the latter over the spreading of a hedonistic pact as far and as widely as possible.

 

[hitssquad]

Are plants really nonsentient

The moral issue rests on the ability to experience (feel). A creature with the ability to experience deserves consideration, regardless or race, species, etc.

Before (here and here), you said that this was conditional upon rights also being granted to humans and for the reason of sentience in humans.

[rewording:]Before (here and here), you said that this was conditional upon rights also being granted, for the reason of their respective sentience, to humans.

All known methods of determining sentience (not level of cognition, but just plain existence of sentience--ability to experience) do not show a difference between humans and many other animals, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and more.

There may not be a discrete difference between the sentience of animals and that of plants, regardless of any such being detectable by current instruments combined with current statistical technologies.

 

[Vance]

Thanks hitssquad,
I think comparison between human and animal only comes into being when there are real technical, scientific problems that need to consider or only when we, human go mad about each other...Thinking so far and hard about this and that actually won't get you any farther than just waste your time and your mind...I love small lovely animals, I have 2 white rabbits...They are my "best friends"...lol but I never say that they are not animals. My grandfather used to raise lots of pigs, I love the black dotted one but oneday, she got sick and were to get killed. I cried the whole night... Sounds crazie ?? Yes, it might sound crazie to some, but to others it mightnot. Eating meat or not is not a problem really, thefact out there is that Muslim people don't quite eat meat right? But they still live their lives day after day. The only real, pratical problem now is that "Can you put food on your table ? If you can, how and what way ?"
Animals can have rights if you, humans want to give them some rights. You could say animals have rights like humans do, this also means i think you already realize rights that they should have, but since we, human, are upper and highest leveled creatures, we can still get those rights back. That means animals actually have no rights, it is only because you think so, you want to make it fair and good for all animals and such a way of thinking about animal nowadays is really important and really respectable anyway. But Human is human, Animal is Animal...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Dan summed it up in the contingency, "If humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience."

I wasn't saying that other animals having rights depends on human animals having rights. I was saying that if rights exist, both humans and animals have rights for the same reasons.
It's not humans rights->animal rights, but sentience->human rights and sentience->animal rights.
The "if" was to refer to address the fact that some people don't believe in the idea of rights at all. My whole point is that it is arbitrary discrimination to provide consideration (whether in the form of "rights" or not) to consider the interests of human animals and not of other animals.

So, as Dan says (even though he seems to have confused the word "relevant" with the word "discrete"),

No, I said relevant and I meant relevant. There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.

where we are in this thread is we have all agreed that there is no intrinsic reason not to eat meat.

I would be careful before putting words in others' mouths...
While there may be no intrinsic reason (because the only intrinsic values are those of experience), there are consequential reasons (ethics, health, environment--actually the health one might be considered intrinsic) not to. But that is the case with nearly everything that we don't do.

Later on, Dan will be enlightened as to the differences between adequate and optimal nutrition, and why a society and its most socially responsible members might choose the latter over the spreading of a hedonistic pact as far and as widely as possible.

It appears to me that an animal-inclusive diet cannot reach as healthy a level as a non-animal (mainly plants) diet. Adopting a vegetarian diet will generally cause a person to eat more plant sources that provide a variety of nutrients that are generally lacking in a typical western diet. Vegetarian is more optimal than meat-inclusive.

 

[hitssquad]

The meat-eating question in terms of cost-effective optimal health, anti-senescence

It appears to me that an animal-inclusive diet cannot reach as healthy a level as a non-animal (mainly plants) diet. Adopting a vegetarian diet will generally cause a person to eat more plant sources that provide a variety of nutrients that are generally lacking in a typical western diet. Vegetarian is more optimal than meat-inclusive.

There are several non-essential amino acids -- generally present in greater amounts in meat than than in vegetarian foods -- that consistently show a health-positive response in experimental animals fed these amino acids in generous quantities.

This life extensionist says he consumes a largely vegetarian diet in addition to a massive supplement regimen, but that some meat added to the veggies is the best bet he can figure out presently for maximum aging-curve squaring. As you can see, he consumes small amounts of chicken, turkey, sardines, cheese, salmon, "canned meat," eggs, and it looks like probably various meats when he dines out. In addition, he daily consumes 26 grams of (probably 80% or above WPC) whey protein. (Whey protein is a byproduct of the cheese-making industry.)


Most life extensionists seem to consume diets similar to that referenced above.


One potential problem with meat may be caloric density vs. non-amino-acid/non-peptide antioxidant density (there are physiologically important antioxidants in meat, such as the peptide carnosine, and the amino acids taurine and glycine). Because of this caloric density, perhaps less veggies, herbs, and spices may be consumable by a heavy meat eater during a typical day.

But, as far as general healthiness of largely meat vs. largely or completely veggie, one factor that may make a veggie diet typically healthier may be that meat is often cooked a lot longer, and hence it has a chance to oxidize and glycate (glycation is protein crosslinking; crosslinked protein is extremely biologically reactive in vivo and a contributor to biological aging, both when that protein that crosslinks is already part of the body and when it is protein consumed). Cooking meat as carefully and gently as possible, and especially in the presence of antioxidants and antiglycation agents such as the typical array of Italian and Indian spices (as well as specialty chemicals such as aminoguanidine, available from chemical supply houses).

Also, part of why meat may be less healthy may be the inexpensive way it is raised. There are specialty farms that try to raise healthier meat. Eating this meat is an option for people who may choose to spend a little more to increase the quality (and/or reduce the cruelty) of the meat they eat (or the eggs or the milk, as there are farms that specialize in healthier, less-cruel eggs and milk).


So, it is not necessarily the meat itself that makes an animal products inclusive diet less healthy, and including some meat may be a cost-effective way (a pure vegetarian could https://www2.acadia.net/cgi-bin/BAC/web_store.cgi?product=Amino_Acids separately {though perhaps at greater cost} any chemical-factory-produced amino acids {or any of several other typical meat constituents} he might want want) to get close to an optimum anti-senescence diet/regimen.

 

[Vance]

See the farmers from different parts of the world ?
>>>>http://www.ifap.org/develop.html
I don't like people eating any small lovely animals but if you like rabbits
>>>>http://www.pan-am.uniserve.com/pg000031.htm

Originally posted by hitssquad
Also, part of why meat may be less healthy may be the inexpensive way it is raised. There are specialty farms that try to raise healthier meat. Eating this meat is an option for people who may choose to spend a little more to increase the quality (and/or reduce the cruelty) of the meat they eat (or the eggs or the milk, as there are farms that specialize in healthier, less-cruel eggs and milk).

An example for the above quote is the following file about Chicken
>>>>www.investmongolia.com/p52.pdf[/URL]

 

[hitssquad]

Free-range farming

An example for the above quote is the following file about www.investmongolia.com/p52.pdf[/URL] family farm is more like what I had in mind:


[list]We presently raise 350 free range chickens in moveable coops and are hoping to increase the number next year.

We are constantly selling out and turning customers away so if you are interested in fine tasting chicken you need to contact us early to reserve your birds.

Chickens on grass, in coops built with no floor.

Once a day the coop are moved ahead far enough to allow the chickens access to fresh grass and insects. A furniture cart is used to pull the coop ahead and the birds quickly learn to pick up their feet and move along with it.

A second cart at the rear allows the coop to roll easily. You can see the grass is well eaten each day and the birds are healthy.

The birds are put into the coops at 3 weeks and spend the next 7 weeks there. The coops are removed daily. They receive fresh water twice daily as well as non-medicated chicken feed. They average 7 lbs per bird when dressed.[/list]


However, it might be noted that "free-range" can mean a variety of different things. The above example looks like a pretty healthy chicken farm, but there reportedly have been examples of farms abusing the term "free-range". http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0820/n228/18523873/p1/article.jhtml is a well-known expose on free-range farming that was published by Vegetarian Times in 1996.

 

[russ_watters]

No, I said relevant and I meant relevant. There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.

Are there any relevant differences that affect the kind of or extent of those rights?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Are there any relevant differences that affect the kind of or extent of those rights?

Yes. In our Bill of Rights, there is listed the right to own a firearm. This obviously would not apply to a chicken.

However, the concept that we are to be free from harm as possible applies equally well to a variety of species.

 

[hitssquad]

Relevance of deservingness of consideration and protection

I said relevant and I meant relevant. There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.

Was the relevance of deservingness of consideration and protection established?

 

[russ_watters]

Yes. In our Bill of Rights, there is listed the right to own a firearm. This obviously would not apply to a chicken.

However, the concept that we are to be free from harm as possible applies equally well to a variety of species.

So there are differences in rights depending on the animal. Have you put any effort into defining precisely what rights apply to what animals and why (and perhaps when)?

 

[honestrosewater]

What this all boils down to is that I do not see any significant or relevant difference to the different types of pains and pleasures. They are all subjective experiences that have (positive and/or negative) values, and there is no apparent use in dividing among "physical"/"psychological", complex/simple, or anything of the nature, except to note that it is harder to decipher some experiences than it is to decipher others through observation.

Are you opposed to vaccinations? I ask for two reasons. First, I think that "pain and pleasure" could be better characterized as "the pain/pleasure scale" or something similar. I think that sensations can be qualitatively ordered; I perceive a difference between a needle prick and a debilitating disease.
Second, there is something that seems to have been overlooked- foresight. Because I percieve a difference between a needle prick and a debilitating disease, and consider the disease to be worse, I would suffer the needle to avoid the disease. Thus I think the qualitative ordering is significant and relevant.
You have already mentioned the subjectivity of pain and pleasure, and the difficulty in inferring them objectively. But I think this difficulty is not a matter of human and nonhuman animals, or of only strict "physical" observation. Animals can have psychological and social reasons for intentionally hiding their pain and pleasure; to avoid embarrasment or save face, for instance. There is also the problem of actually making the observation. Like asking, "Can I ask you a question?", the observation itself may cause pain- how are you to discover? Living is an interaction with your environment, and, if your environment includes other nervous systems, any interaction is possibly a painful one. I don't think a person can live without running the risk of causing pain- their own or another's- that's life. (Don't you hate it when people say that? ;) However, minimizing pain is still an option, and, to me, it is the right option. But what does eating meat have to do with causing pain?
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[turin]

There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.

This seems to be the popular quote of the day. I will come right out and say that I disagree with this. I will initially coment on the fact that the body delegating such rights happens to be exclusively of the human animal species (as far as I can tell, though I may be a bit suspicious of some of the veggie-eaters on this board ). That, in itself, I hold to be of the utmost relevance.

I do not allow cockroaches to roam my apartment freely; I have not problem squashing them whenever I see them; I feel no moral confliction; they are not human, and, as most humans, I do not deem them appropriate for apartment life. Perhaps someday the tables will turn and the cockroaches will be squashing people who live in their garbage cans. Or perhaps even the Earth is a giant intergalactic garbage can for a superior alien race who will return some day and decide that we have infested it. I don't believe that we could make a good argument to the superior race that we have the right to live in their garbage can. I've never heard a good argument from a cockroach. I would make similar arguments for other "bugs," weeds, and such.

This begs the question (at least in my mind): which other species, then, besides humans, are deserving of indistinquishable rights from humans? All of them? If there are species of life excluded from the list, then there must be a criterion.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Was the relevance of deservingness of consideration and protection established?

Yes. It was established through establishing that they are sentient (having subjective experiences).

The most basic protections apply to every sentient creature:
Except in cases where one's actions would be harmful to others, and must thus be restricted, or in which a somewhat harmful action yields stronger benefits, freedom from bodily and psycholigical harm and inflicted death. These entail in highly mobile or communicative creatures freedom of action.

Rather than sit down and draw out a list of rights for each individual creatures, the most reasonable way to go is to understand that creatures deserve consideration, realize a basic set of interests (and the related considerations) of all or most sentient creatures, and then from there take things on a case-by-case basis where complications arise.

Are you opposed to vaccinations?

Of course not, for the very reason that you said that you would suffer the needle prick. It would be dumb to only consider the immediate or first effects of an action, but all the effects, including those 125 years down the road. This is consistent with treating pleasure and pain as the values--pleasure and pain not just now, but also in the future.

This seems to be the popular quote of the day. I will come right out and say that I disagree with this. I will initially coment on the fact that the body delegating such rights happens to be exclusively of the human animal species (as far as I can tell, though I may be a bit suspicious of some of the veggie-eaters on this board ). That, in itself, I hold to be of the utmost relevance.

All that shows is that we are of superior intelligence and communicating ability, which are irrelevant. The relevant criterion to whether or not an organism deserves protection is whether or not it can experience.

It doesn't matter that we are smarter. Should the Einsteins and Da Vincis be allowed to tread all over those of normal intelligence? No. Should a normal person be allowed to tread all over a mentally-handicapped person? No.

 

[russ_watters]

It doesn't matter that we are smarter. Should the Einsteins and Da Vincis be allowed to tread all over those of normal intelligence? No. Should a normal person be allowed to tread all over a mentally-handicapped person? No.

Whoa, back up a sec: does a menally handicapped person have the same rights as a person who isn't? Think about that for a minute.

And that's even setting aside the issue of how do we know what animals (or, say, a person in a coma) experience if we can't communicate with them...

 

[turin]

Dissident Dan,
I did not imply anything regarding the intelligence of the delegating body. The implication was more to the point of immediacy. For instance, I do not hold the members of the US congress to be more intelligent than the members of some Polynesian tribe (and probably I would hold to the contrary, but that's beside the point). However, one could argue that the members of the US congress should be more concerned with American affairs than with Polynesian afairs. For one thing, the members of the US congress are in fact American, so it just seems more appropriate to me. For another thing, the Polynesian tribe has organized itself for its own governmental purposes.

Why am I discussing politics? Because this is where I categorize the issue of whether or not to eat meat. I believe that humanity is a relevant issue for the basis of moral descrimination in the same sense that American citizenship is a relevant issue for the basis of protection under the law, taxation and such.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Whoa, back up a sec: does a menally handicapped person have the same rights as a person who isn't? Think about that for a minute.

And that's even setting aside the issue of how do we know what animals (or, say, a person in a coma) experience if we can't communicate with them...

The smarter ones are afforded different rights and privileges, but that is not to say that the mentally-handicapped have none at all. What I was saying that intelligence doesn't matter in the yes or no question of whether we have rights, not the extent to which those rights exist. Obviously, you do not let a person with the intelligence of a dog drive a car.

I communicate with my dogs often throughout the day. I didn't say that we can't communicate with them. I said that we have greater communication skills.

 

[turin]

Should the Einsteins and Da Vincis be allowed to tread all over those of normal intelligence? No. Should a normal person be allowed to tread all over a mentally-handicapped person? No.

Why not? That's your opinion. The only reason that I believe those opinions have ever held up is the strength in numbers, and lesser intelligent beings tend to greatly out-number and thus physically overpower those of greater intelligence.