I am not going to argue which side I stand for in this debate, but I do think that this could make an interesting debate (if it hasn’t already been done…)
Why does the majority of our society think it’s alright to kill animals for food, and yet think it’s bad to kill a person who has (by disease, genetics, or other means) lost the use of their higher faculties?
I’d say its because we draw a line between the ourselves and the rest of the animal kingdom. On one side of the line are the “lesser” animals and on the other side is us. The incapacitated person is still viewed as being one of us (which they are) and so are covered by the laws and feelings that most people have against killing other people. Animals, on the other had, are often seen as lesser and separate from us and by being such do not fall under the written and unwritten laws of man.
I take it you’re referring to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that inflicting capital punishment upon a mentally retarded criminal qualified as “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Because people taste so good that if encouraged to do so we would eat ourselves to extinction in short order.
That or like most social/moral taboo this one is based on primitive health observations. At some point some cannibal ancestor of ours probably saw the efects of kuru, just as one of my ancestors say people who ate pork and shellfish and married cousins tended to be messed up.
Y’could also draw it back to just an extremely primitive, evolutional form of self-preservation. Eating a human decreases that human’s chances of reproduction, even if the human is in a comatose state. Thus, we don’t want to kill the person. Besides, we don’t want to eat them, because we have some innate sense of respect for the dead, and we can easily get food somewhere else. Note that this debate exists mainly in countries where people have enough money to have the CHOICE of allowing a comatose relative to live.
Animals, on the other hand, are yummy and don’t produce baby humans, so most people think killing them for food is ok.
Uh, maybe a quick review of the OP is in order. I don’t think Speaker is looking for a debate on cannibalism.
I think the question is whether consciousness and intelligence is the only distinction between what is a “human life” which morally must be preserved, and what is mere animal existence, which can be terminated according to human whim.
I am not against euthanasia for the terminally ill, or pulling the plug on a human vegetable (flame away if you will). As for the mentally ill, if they can function to a point where they can lead a productive life, so be it. As for those who are dependant upon others for care/feeding/etc., <shrug>, I don’t know.
nahtanoj
I honestly don’t know. It seems like “being human” is an arbitrary cut-off (which by itself doesn’t really bother me), and when a person loses what it means to be human then why keep up the facade? People love their pets but still put them to sleep. The way we keep some people alive is more terrifying than a wax museum of horrors, IMO.
I suspect that the distinction is that individual people aren’t replaceable, while individual animals are.
This is probably going to lead into a whole debate on what constitutes a human person…As I see it, an individual human being is made up of a specific collection of thoughts, feelings, choices, emotions, memories and perspectives that is irreplaceable. We’re more than the tasks we perform. Say, when Cecil dies (cry it with me: Cecil shall never die!!!), the Chicago Reader can always find another writer for the Straight Dope, but it can never find another Cecil, who’s got his specific life knowledge, experience, and personality. Get it?
Whereas animals…and hey, we do love them…ARE replaceable, to the extent that animals are generally function-providing creatures rather than personalities. Which is not to belittle animal lovers out there (my 15 year old cat was just put to sleep, and it sucked) or their pets, but animals generally provide a function: love, companionship, friendship, protection, etc. But these things can be fulfilled by another animal. I can always get another cat and love it just the same.
(Crap…I just know somebody out there is going to yell at me about this. “Hey, you insensitive bastard!” Phooey.)
I think individual people are replaceable, actually, when viewed functionally as well. I think it is unfair to look at animals as performing a function and then looking at people as personalities. Pets have personalities, too. Yes, I could always get another pet, and true I could always get another friend (assuming one died), and in neither case would it be the same when viewed from the aspect of personality. IMO.
Well, if we killed people who had lost their higher mental faculties, this board would lose some of its more entertaining posters!