Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
Practical lines must be drawn. Using a taboo that overly restricts behaviour, and making the mentally retarted and young infants out of bounds, is far more practical than actually measuring this. And the benefit to eating babies and mentally retarded people is small, so the taboo is low in costs.
|
So your decision to not treat infants and the mentally handicapped in a cruel manner is one of practicality, rather than any real moral commitment.
So a mother who physically abuses her child is not
really doing anything wrong? Her punishment that she would recieve is just the result of technical loop-hole, due to the fact that we must keep practicallity in mind when deciding on the law?
Quote:
|
As an aside, I suspect that a number of animals deserve protection. Some sea mammals (Dolphins, Whales), as well as some of our closer kin on dry land.
|
Why does biological relation to us and/or living on land have a bearing on our responsibility to treat them morally?
Quote:
|
As a second aside, I am aware my decision to value intelligence and reason is arbitrary.
|
Indeed it is. As arbitrary a trait as, dare I say it, sex, religion or skin colour?