6 ms·
>so there has to be a line somewhere. And that line is human consciousness. I empathize with humans and animals too(especially mammalian), of course. But I ch
by cdi 13y ago
>so there has to be a line somewhere.
And that line is human consciousness.
I empathize with humans and animals too(especially mammalian), of course. But I choose not to be swayed by feelings when I think about policy. Preservation of nature doesn't require empathy, and justice among humans doesn't require it after utilitarian principle is chosen.
Domesticated animals are born and live for our utility. As long as we don't consider animal pet ownership as equal to slavery, I don't see how animal experimentation is problematic.
- JabavuAdams 13y agoWhat is "human consciousness"? These are the so-called "suitcase words". They're neat and compact, but once you open the suitcase, you realize you had no idea what was inside.
- StavrosK 13y agoHuman consciousness is entirely arbitrary. There's no definition that will include all humans and only all humans.
- V-2 13y ago"And you my friend, how do you know I am not a fish — you are not I?" ;) It's splitting hairs... Yes of course there is no absolutely precise definition of human consciousness, but it does not mean that the term becomes useless. I can't draw a precise line between a plain and a mountain (where does one start and the other end?), but it does not mean I can never tell about anything that it's not a mountain
- StavrosK 13y agoThe term doesn't become useless, but it becomes non-usable where laws and morality are concerned. Should we experiment on cognitively impaired people because they are less intelligent than a dog or a dolphin? How about month-old babies?
- V-2 13y agoIntelligence and consciousness are not synonymous at all. As for the month-old babies (or a boxer knocked unconscious - not as cute, but still ;) ), I think consciousness in this context should be understood as something specific of our species as such, rather than of any individual in particular.
- V-2 13y agoOr in another way. The fact that we do not differentiate (in terms of "life value") between mentally handicapped, or otherwise helpless humans and the rest, is a result of a separate ethical choice that regulates relations between us as human individuals. This choice does not logically require accepting the notion of any animal rights.