There is not a single type of animal that actually asks questions, that seeks to learn, not even chimps or gorillas that we can communicate with pretty well via sign language.
Humans are so, so, so, so far pasts even our closest animal companion. People also like to make the 'what if super advanced aliens came to eat us' argument.A cow will never be anything more than a cow. Then there are infants.the main difference with infants is that an infant has the potential to grow into a fully functional human. Otherwise, the reason we look after them so well is for the comfort of people who care about them. In cases where it is abundantly clear that they completely, absolutely lack self-awareness, I think they deserve moral consideration only if their is potential for them to improve. Mentally disabled humans are still leagues ahead of an animal in most cases, and in other cases it's hard to say exactly what their level is. I find this to be an incredibly flawed argument which is not much more than an appeal to emotion. People often invoke comparisons to mentally deficient humans, the argument from marginal cases.not capable of valuing their own life, they have no right to life. Essentially, my view is that if a being is not self-aware, i.e. They are essentially organic robots, and I see little difference betweem them an an advanced model of roomba (which needs to sleep, can automatically recharge, can learn, and is limited to a few basic functions). They have no mind, no self-awareness in any sense.they are not sapient. Most insects, worms and other basic creatures are 'sentient', and because of this I find that meaningless. Sentience simply means having enough of a 'mind' to use senses.I will try and summarize my argument by making bullet points, look forward to feedback and I expect to expand and refine it throughout this discussion. The crux of my argument is that it is not wrong to kill a sentient animal, but it is wrong to kill a sapient animal.
I'd actually like to write an informal article, perhaps on or something arguing my position, so I hope this will be a good exercise to test it.Īnyway. I may not know every fallacy or all the jargon, but I am comfortable that I can defend my ideas. But that's part of why I am here to test my ideas and see how they hold up. I've read up on some philosophy relevant to veganism, and I'm OK with logic to a certain degree, but I'm not as into it as many others. I didn't make an introduction post because I really want to just put forward and test these specific ideas, and don't know how much I will stick around.
0 kommentar(er)
