Let’s assume that parents tortured for two months and then killed their 3 months old baby. Let’s also assume no one even knew they had this baby besides them. Now replace “baby” with “adult dog”. What’s the difference? The dog is definitely more intelligent than a 3 months old baby and I personally would feel more compassion for the dog, since 3 months old babies are not as complex creatures as adult dogs so their suffering is not as severe, at least from my perspective.
Most libertarians will claim that torturing and killing animals is not a crime, while torturing and killing a baby is a serious crime and can be punished with capital punishment. But why is that? The two cases seem completely equivalent to me.
But I said no one except the parents knew the baby even existed (up until it was killed). Besides, this is irrelevant. Why would you give the grandparents the right to exact vengeance but you won’t give the same right exactly to a dog owner whose dog was murdered?
If you are a materialist then your opening argument would be correct. Now given the intuitive oppostion to such a position it would indicate that materialism is insufficient.
That is relevant if you want to make a Colombo episode out of it, but isn’t important for the morality of the thing.
We know that there is in fact a victim (the baby), even if people who are its legal representatives (parents forfeited that role) are not aware of any of it.
I assumed they killed their own dog? You said to replace the baby with a dog.
I’m an unabashed “speciesist”, so I’d feel more compassion for the 3-month-old baby than the dog. Honestly, I don’t know why anyone would feel otherwise.
First off, I don’t know how you can say that “most libertarians” think murder can be punished with capital punishment.
Second, the cases don’t seem completely equivalent to you, based on what you said earlier - that you’d feel more compassion for the adult dog than the 3-month-old baby.
Third, and most importantly, morality and rights are inherently human concepts and therefore only apply to humans. I don’t see why it has to be any more complicated than that.
Aliens If an intelligent species were to arrive on earth, they would most likely be peaceful. It is hard to imagine how an unpeaceful group of individuals would ever develop the technology required for such a journey. Secondly, technological advances make the spread of information easy so that good ideas beat bad ideas; and so peaceful and productive ideas would have long beaten unpeaceful and destructive ideas. In that case there would be no reason to regard such individuals as anything less than human societal participants; and so inter-species societal integration is entirely possible.
It is just a personal choice and preference of those libertarians.
There is no objective reason why animals should be treated differently from people in the libertarian identity.
The second part of that statement does not logically follow the first. You are simply stating your personal preference of what moral code of conduct you like.
There are some really poor arguments for allowing abuse of arguments but the argument ‘that rights are inherrantly human things’ has got to be the worst.
I have never ever from anyone heard a decent argument as to why extremely mentally handicaped humans should be considered as worhy of rights but animals not.
They always end up with the respondent i) making an abusive comment ii) telling him that 'that was what he was always taught (as if that means anything) or some religious based shit.
You first. You demonstrate the logic you are applying — something which can not be done – then you have a worthwhile statement to consider.
However, I will respond:
The application of morality to certain specific situations has no bearing on who is applying it and to whom it is applied. Just like, the color of your skin has no bearing on how you should be treated either.
I would feel more compassion towards a dog than a 3 months old baby because dogs are more complex creatures, and they are more conscious of their surroundings than young babies. They feel pain more sharply, they have more complex emotions, etc… I have no proof of it (though there are studies on this subject), I am talking from personal experience.
So why should we treat humans in some special way just because they are humans, that’s just like treating white people differently just because they are white. Instead we should treat individuals according to their qualities, not according to their belonging to a particular race.
Then it’s okay to beat the fuck out of a low-grade moron that spills your drink at the bar? I know that question is out of left field, but the consequences of your choice depend on the implicit declaration that some individuals are more valuable than others. I don’t see there being a way to value a life of any intelligent being versus that another in non-lifeboat situations.
And in lifeboat situations, I bat for my own team (the human species) because it’s the one that gave birth to me and I wouldn’t fault any other intelligent species to do the same if it was a choice between a human baby versus a their own young since it’s a logical choice to continue your own species than to continue others.
Well you treat individuals according to whatever qualities you desire and understand that other people will do the same.
To me a 3 month old baby’s qualities(I have a 3 month old nephew) are more than enough for me not to give a damn about a dog. Don’t misunderstand I love dogs they’re amazing, but I tend to have powerful emotions associated with humans- and I don’t find anything wrong with reaching conclusions based on those feelings. I do find something wrong with rejecting those types of feelings in favor of some logical train of thought that we’re all living beings so we’re all the same.
Why don’t we have the right to kill a completely retarded person? Because that super retarded person is still a creature and as such has a right not to be aggressed against. I think the same is true for any animal with the same complexity and intelligence.