Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:JohnDonne wrote:Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:
The premium you place on consistency is what I was arguing against. I am arguing that it is unethical to treat humans and animals consistently. In, fact, I would argue that it is unethical to even sacrifice an iota of human pleasure for the sake of a chicken or cow.
I am consistently humanist, and a hedonist.
You may be a humanist, but you fail to outline what makes your standard different than bigotry.
For if consciousness takes a complete back seat to the ethical primacy of species, why not to race and skin color? In rigging the game to turn up human you validate the arbitrary means by which you rig it, and thus jeopardize the foundations of why we value any sentient life.
Exactly. I am bigoted in favor of humans. I believe this to be an ethical form of bigotry. It does not follow that all forms of bigotry are ethical.
This isn't arbitrary, in the sense that it is whimsical, random, or irrational. I view the difference between humans and other animals as being as obvious as the difference between animals and plants, and place the burden of proof on those who want me to believe there is no difference.
So you admit bigotry, interesting. You are correct that it doesn't follow that all forms of bigotry are unethical, but I would say it follows that a bigot by definition is obstinately constrained by their prejudices.
Nukedog is a bigot as well, his bigotry is not arbitrary according to him either.
You say I have the burden of proof when I make an equivalence between humans and animals. I have provided that proof and you accepted it earlier in the thread. I said animals are persons, I cited their analogous behavior and causal structures. You accepted that but said you make a distinction between animal persons and human persons.
Personhood is the basis of my equivalence.
You are making a distinction in that equivalence, that places the burden of evidence back onto yourself.
Every distinction has a basis, if your distinction is not arbitrary but rational, what is the basis for your distinction and how is it ethically relevant?