(serious question)
Does anyone here support both the granting of habeus corpus to chimpanzees as well as the legalized killing of unborn humans in the womb? How do you rationalize it?
Does anyone here support both the granting of habeus corpus to chimpanzees as well as the legalized killing of unborn humans in the womb? How do you rationalize it?
sentience level. Chimpanzee has higher sentience than a 4-weeks old fetus which has sentience level of a fish.
I'm all for granting protections and rights (and responsibilities coming with it) according to sentience level independently of species. This in particular would equate an adult chimpanzee and 3-4 year toddler and senile 95 years old with advanced Alzheimer.
To "zigzero" below: your desire to kill a highly sentient living being just to satisfy your urge for some peculiar taste you like is ridiculous. Mommy, i want a candy, a-aaa-a! Time to grow up.
- Unless you live in a society where raping young boys is essential to your survival, it's wrong.
- The racism of the past was OK, but as a society we've moved past the need for it, so now it's morally wrong.
In fact I can think of many examples where something is a crime unless it is necessary for survival. In law there is even a concept of "necessity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity) that says it's ok to commit some crimes in some circumstances when it is necessary, e.g. self defense.
no. At some point we, as a species and civilization, mature to the point where we understand that "thing A" is unacceptable. It happened to slavery, raping (violently or statutory) children, etc... Actual stopping of such things takes time and organized effort and practically happens in stages. It is just naturally happens what the last, most hardest, place of getting rid of "thing A" is where that thing is performed for survival. We know that it is wrong, and many people work to stop it from happening, it just takes more time and effort, and for the time being in such cases for political reasons "exceptions" are sometimes granted - a tradeoff made to minimize evil until that evil is completely eradicated.
So in short - it isn't "an evil thing stops being evil when for survival", instead it is "an evil thing is much harder to get rid off when it is for survival".
It's incredible how all logic goes out the window in a group of otherwise very intelligent people when the topic of animal rights comes up.
Do you argue that the human species is special and distinct from other animals in some categorical way that leads to the establishment of these rights for any human individual? It seems obvious to many people that we're just mammals, more capable than other mammals in some ways and less capable in other ways, and that all of our differences are more quantitative than qualitative, and that any line you draw ("You must be this smart to live") is arbitrary and can't be justified rationally.
Do you argue that you should grant more rights to an individual of your own species than to one of a different species? That premise is hard to argue with, but it seems absurd if you consider a hypothetical planet with two intelligent species.
I understand that the primacy of homo sapiens seems obvious to most people, but most people don't ever bother to question this idea. Consider that most vegetarians and vegans have probably thought about this topic more than you have. Obviously that doesn't prove them right and you wrong -- but by the way you posed your challenge it seems like you expected there to be no rational response. So put yourself in the shoes of a vegetarian for a minute and struggle with your own worldview for a second: how do you rationalize your worldview?
EDIT: s/sentient species/intelligent species/
> By what rational basis is a deer less worthy
> of (any particular) rights than a fetus?
> Do you argue that the human species is special and
> distinct from other animals in some categorical way <snip>?
> Do you argue that you should grant more rights
> to an individual of your own species than to one
> of a different species? That premise is hard to
> argue with, but it seems absurd if you consider a
> hypothetical planet with two intelligent species.
> ...we're just mammals, more capable than other
> mammals in some ways and less capable in other ways,
> and that all of our differences are more
> quantitative than qualitative...
> ...
> I understand that the primacy of homo sapiens seems
> obvious to most people...
Even if you consider those to be quantitative differences, the quantitative difference is huge.
I'm not advocating for animal cruelty or torture at all. But if we're all just mammals, why do we care about the ethics of being cruel vs. humane at all? Apes will never grant each other due process of law. If we're so much like them, why do we care?
Why would there be an analogy between my hypothetical and your original question? The role of the hypothetical is not to be a corner case, it's to urge you to consider a scenario that's different from our current corner-case. Being a member of the only high-intelligence species on the planet is a corner-case -- for us the "all other species" set and the "all non-intelligent species" set are equivalent. It's worth asking how your viewpoint holds up when that's not the case.
Would you consider the fact that a human fetus can grow up to write a play, learn to sing, discover electricity, debate ethics, and express incredibly deep emotion to be qualitative or quantitative differences from chimps or dolphins? Even if you consider those to be quantitative differences, the quantitative difference is huge
Huge by some reckoning I guess. Would you consider the fact that other apes can use tools, raise young, mourn death, form complex social relationships, and teach skills quantitative differences or qualitative differences compared to other mammals? You can do it at every level all the way until you reach single-cell organisms. Do you not see that you're just special-casing your own species because you happen to be a member of it and because it happens to be at the top? I know you don't like hypotheticals, but let's say we weren't at the top, and the species at the top could describe all the skills they have that we don't. I don't suppose you'd say "okay, they are worthy of rights, but I'm not." You'd continue arbitrary suggesting that only those at your level and above are worthy of rights.
But if we're all just mammals, why do we care about the ethics of being cruel vs. humane at all? Apes will never grant each other due process of law. If we're so much like them, why do we care?
We're not like them, that's why we care. We're much more intelligent than them, so much so that we have the capacity to treat them with compassion. It is your viewpoint -- to eat anything you can kill that's not of your species and that tastes good -- that is similar to the ape's. If you extrapolate from the way humanity is progressing, you'll come to the conclusion that one day, long after both you and I are dead, your viewpoint will be considered barbaric.
The granting of habeas corpus to chimpanzees in this case is a method of allowing a legal argument as to their status to be heard and decided; it isn't a grant of personhood so much as a granting someone the right to make an argument on their behalf that they are entitled to such a grant.
The status of fetuses and the limits on the power of states to grant them rights that would interfere with a woman's right to choose vis-à-vis abortion has been litigated fairly exhaustively to the highest courts.
This isn't reddit.
A fetus is not a person.
The top result[0], from what appears to be a pro-choice activist site, is an article purporting to take on the argument that a fetus is a person. After reading the article, do you think it represents a mindset which is willing to reconsider its views in light of empirical evidence or any scientific study?
[0]: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusp...
What do each of them say in regards to the distinct nature of a person?
HN makes for a pretty science-and-empirical-evidence-friendly crowd. I'm pretty sure each discipline (and probably more) has some idea what constitutes a person. My original question was meant to suss out where different people derived their definition of personhood from, and see if those conclusions had been arrived at by following facts or some other rational line of thought.
Honestly I would be very surprised if infant humans passed this, let alone unborn babies. I doubt a non-instinctual desire to remain alive can exist before that entity has the ability to recognize death as a concept and possibility. From what I have seen of babies, they just aren't that smart. I mean come on, they have to learn that they have hands, how could they have a conscious desire to preserve their own life before they are even aware of their full body?
Can you name something that's not a thought experiment where a chimp has shown that higher level of reasoning? Where they show a preference specifically about their own life/death.
Edit: For example, an especially good test for a human would be a button that gives a mild zap when you press it, but if it goes unpressed then you die in your sleep from carbon monoxide poisoning. That shows actual preference for life, and not just running away from a negative stimulus.
> Honestly I would be very surprised if infant humans
> passed this, let alone unborn babies.
If there were 5 babies and 5 chimps drowning in the pool, I'd have no hesitation to save the 5 babies first, and I would expect prosecution for negligence if I didn't and the babies died. I don't think this is merely a desire to save "my own" species for some weird sake of solidarity. I think it's a reasonable discernment of the relative value of the lives at stake.
> From what I have seen of babies, they just aren't that smart.
In any case is a bad testing design that can not prove nothing. And unnecessary also, we should safely assume that every creature want to stay alive and have as many descendands as they can. Testing should try to discover exceptions, not to find unrelated facts that can fit our rule.
How do you know? They certainly react to hunger and pain, but so do flies and, arguably, even plants.
How can we presume that an unborn human does not desire the right to life, a right we give freely to someone who is born?
So, regarding your question, we can't. That's why we don't allow for the abortion of any unborn person, just a subset.