View Single Post
Old 02-05-2005, 08:46 AM   #31 (permalink)
Bossnass
Détente
 
Bossnass's Avatar
 
Location: AWOL in Edmonton
I have to admit that I am a specisist. There is simply not enough evidence to treat other species with more "equality". One of your preemptive arguments relies on intelligence and the ability to reason, based on the statement that infants aren't intelligent. However, intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, which human infants have in great amounts. There is no evidence that any of the food staple species are actually intelligent. While animals may be sentient, there is also no evidence of a conscience or any real self awareness.

Further, regarding the mentally retarded. The fact that we, as a society, show a social conscience strong enough to support people with disablities proves that there are real distictions between humans and other species. I am not claiming that humans have never committed acts contrary to our current social conscience, but I am arguing that our food source speicies have never shown the capacity to do so. Having a social conscience is a result of having an individual conscience, which is in turn the result of being intelligent. Thus, this species distinction is not arbitrary. Further, it has been stated that other animals, such as lions, are not capable of morality. It follows that species incapable of morality should be distingished from those that are moral, as illustrated by the penal system. I am not proposing we eat or test on criminals, I am suggesting that the ability to have morals is another real distinction between humans and other species.

To extrapolate this into another current issue: I support to same sex marriage, I support differnt sex marriage, I support inter-faith marriage, and I support inter-racial marriage. However, I don't support inter-special marriage. Based on the initial 'in-group, out-group' argument, do you propose that we should someday accept inter-special unions?


On an unrelated note, I would suffer, as would many others, if society imposed a meat ban. While I don't presume to be able to quantify 'suffering', I would on a personal (and nutritional) level suffer. Millions of people involved in the food industry would lose their livelyhood. All the current 'meat' animals would need to be culled... there is no reason to keep them around other then consumption. The transition to a meatless society would create a great deal of human suffering.
Bossnass is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360