If Chimps are People too...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by milo

basically horn wants to apply ethics equally across 'life' would that be the general thrust?

Something like that. It's the usual animal rights debate (see numerous previous GD threads for more details).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by horn

i think i missed something. so if a spastic can't articulate their wish to live would you go ahead and test on them?

Articulation is a bit of a side point; the cognitive ability behind that is. You assume that a person, with whatever condition (such as spasticity, which is a motor function problem) has the ability

Originally Posted by horn

wouldn't this also apply to animals?

No, as the right of the choice is predicated upon the mental considerations that have been discussed previously, and will be discussed subsequently as well, no doubt.

Originally Posted by horn

actually it isn't. it's not self evident. why do you think this?

Your question was about the non-selfish component of "fairness for all", not its justification, axiomic or otherwise. I answered the question you asked, your follow up here is not relevent.

Originally Posted by horn

what argument were you reffering to when you said "the exact same argument"

The one I was making previously when I mentioned being punched in the face.

Originally Posted by horn

it seems to me, clear as day that i'm not

You interpreted the words "Gut reaction filter system" to mean a system that was filtered by gut reactions; a "Gut reaction filter" "system" if you will. I was referring to a collection of gut reactions that were filtered, a "Gut reaction filter" "system".

The difference is a significant one in isolation, yes, and it was question of the reading of the line, which is why I said any mistake was fair enough. However, I don't quite see the logic behind the chain of thought which has me change the tack of my discussion for one phrase and one phrase alone, especially when, in terms of the point the sentence was making, the difference isn't relevent.

I will make the observation that you continue to refer to me as childish and petty. Just throwing that in, there.

Originally Posted by horn

only if you're not a robot!

And if one was? Who knows! The possibilities are endless.

Originally Posted by horn

and we're (you're) measuring "abstract thought", or indeed the potential of...
how do you measure this?

With reference to the abilities that were suggested as being tested for, in the post you quoted. Measuring abstract concepts in isolation is a foolish pursuit in any science.

Originally Posted by horn

you don't have a good track record in this department

Well, I do frequently refer to the BSG miniseries and the Director's Cut of Blade Runner when answering questions on such diverse subjects as the director's cut of Blade Runner or the BSG miniseries. Less so when doing examples sheets on Maxwell or Fourier Transforms or whathaveyou.

Originally Posted by horn

it seems fairly worthless to say you'd save a chimp before a bat if you'd quite happily see them all die to save a terrorist about to blow himself up from getting a cut on his finger.

I don't think I can think of a circumstance in which that would be true, although I don't think it's worthless.

Originally Posted by horn

you're not simply saying animals should have less rights, you're saying they should have none. i'm fairly certain that before this point, throughout this thread you have been arguing that animals do indeed have no moral worth whatsoever. is their a reason you'd save a chimp before a bat other than sheer indulgence?

They seem to be pretty sharp sticks in animal terms, whereas bats can be very stupid indeed. I wouldn't force someone else to do the same, though, which is relevent.

[milo]

Originally Posted by horn

i feel the onos of definitive evidence here lies with those who wish to dismiss certain entities entirely of moral worth in this case.

Rather than the ones that that insist on it?!?! I say X and you must show why you dismiss it!!!?

Why not apply the 'moral worth' of a chicken to a lion?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by horn

if we could cause pain to a human (for whatever reason) and then, (let's say it's a large amount of pain to maximise the primal/rational brain ratio switch i was speaking of earlier) instantly stop the pain, leaving no physical markers and no memory of the experience. would you be ok with that?

No, because it would violate the liberty principle, but from a suffering perspective it wouldn't matter I suppose.

kind of like animals

No because an animal has never ever displayed the properties I'm talking about. Every single rock (or dead body) in the world is subtly different but not in a way that's important to this discussion. However, every single coma patient / retard / etc is substantially different. Some will have the capacity for abstract thought / language / etc. some will not. NO animal has (to my knowledge) demonstrated anything approaching this. Considering the enormous amount of research / contact with animals that human beings have had over the last x thousand years I imagine we would have noticed if they had by now.