@ambiguous_yelp But if an essential foundation stone of your argument is that nonhumans can be people, wouldn't it be helpful to cajole an admission that the closest living cousin species to humanity could possibly qualify, and then proceed inductively to further branches on the tree of life until a line is discovered?
Discussion
Loading...
@ambiguous_yelp But if an essential foundation stone of your argument is that nonhumans can be people, wouldn't it be helpful to cajole an admission that the closest living cousin species to humanity could possibly qualify, and then proceed inductively to further branches on the tree of life until a line is discovered?
I think that name the trait is a better symmetry breaker against speceisism.
What trait does an abandoned baby human possess that a chicken does not that makes it ok to kill and eat the chicken but not the human?
@ambiguous_yelp If my neighbor kept a coop, with several chickens obviously under their protection, all of them would be safer than that baby, though the right to keep property be less strong than parental rights, for human emotional reasons.
But if I killed and ate one of those chickens, I would not be in mortal peril from her flock.
I would not try that with crows. They retaliate, as humans do, against those who eat their species. This is not a matter of rights, but of prudence.
@ambiguous_yelp Rights are not the whole of morality. They are the lowest common denominator--those principles that a supermajority of participants can agree upon. There is a whole host of other principles to govern personal behavior beyond matters of rights.