[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by horn

well DNA isn't self-aware for a start. may i ask you why you do extend the right to life to spanyards who cannot explain to you that they wish to live?

Covered already. Moving on.

Originally Posted by horn

i mean if prior to a moral code being agreed upon by a group of ethereal beings about to enter human bodies in society, instead of you deciding to vote for a moral code that would prevent you being disproportinately disadvantaged i.e. by choosing a moral code that is "fair" on everyone because you don't know what situation you're going to be in, would you opt for an unfair code if you knew it would bennefit you (i.e. if god promised you would be the son of rich parents would you still opt for high tax rates etc?)

Covered already. Moving on.

Originally Posted by horn

ok then what is the unselfish reason for holding this axiom? (if my response above was confusing which i suspect it is, it requires the same reply as this one)

Because I think it's good to be fair to people? It's fairly obvious.

Originally Posted by horn

i still don't understand how this answers my point

I can't think of a way to explain it any simpler, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by horn

i don't think so.

You'd be wrong there.

Originally Posted by horn

not when it's satire

The satire makes it funny!

Originally Posted by horn

it generally helps if you can define what you're measuring though

That depends on the test. You could be measuring the uptake of language, or the ability to discern social structure (although that's a simpler one, as there's no real abstract concepts), spatial awareness, pattern recognition, whatever.

As I have said, I'm not naïve enough to assume there's some abstract concept of intelligence which tests merely measure, in the same way that there is "space" or "time". Perhaps. (But that's, again, another discussion.)

Originally Posted by horn

yeah i guess you did. you might have guessed i hadn't done many dissertations on the subject when i expressed my regret on having missed this programme. quite why i'd want to watch a 1 hour layman's introduction courtesy of whatever celebrity was presenting it if i had already done "previous research", involving detailed experiments on abstract thought with whatever animals is beyond me...

I watched "Root of All Evil", a program made by Richard Dawkins, even though I held the position (and knew all, and more, of the arguments used beforehand), because I thought I might to enjoy watching it. Irrespective, I investigate things I'm interested in.

Originally Posted by horn

let's say someone who couldn't make the connection between the word "rock" and a rock

Then it depends if they have the potential to. If not, then it depends on other factors, such as the number in this subgroup (if it's particularly trivial, it may not be worth spending the time categorising them differently, in a purely pragmatic sense).

Originally Posted by horn

i was joking

And I was being completely serious, obviously.

Originally Posted by horn

you're confused. yes i would distinguish between individuals based upon cognitive ability. the difference is, i wouldn't then draw a line and say that those on one side are of moral worth and those on the other are of none.

No moral worth? No. Relatively no moral worth? Yes. I'd save a chimp before I saved a bat (or whatever).