Both have strong senses of self-preservation. Everything else are different degrees of intellectual abstraction. If you use human emotions as a benchmark, of course animals will fail that test.
I don’t place very much moral significance in the particular electrochemical signals in our brains that makes us experience terror of death. Again, I don’t think we should look to ourselves to judge other creatures whose brains have not evolved into allowing complex abstract thoughts because they do not require it to prosper in their ecosystem or simply by chance.
That point is moot because sheep cannot understand such a choice.
Agreed. But do you have a problem with helping a person who wants to die to end his or her life? That was the distinction I was making after all (I don’t). Can you defend euthanasia of animals but not humans without invoking some mystical belief? The physical suffering of a horse and a person seems very similar and the realization of our own mortality would only seem to compound that suffering.
I disagree. Again you are using a concept of death that is only available to humans. And I don’t feel that comparing fear is relevant. I think the morality of the act is defined by the intentions of the perpetrator. For example killing an (often endangered) species to wear it’s fur for fashion or eat its testicles for some supposed sexual benefit is a great, great evil whether the animal was beaten to death or sedated and given a lethal injection.
(With the possible exception of the stroke victim, if by “speech” you mean the ability to communicate vocally and not the ability to communicate in general.)
But no one is arguing that animals ought to have all the rights of a healthy adult human. Just the basic ones (that all of those groups still have), like a right to a life, freedom from pain, and autonomy.
But Blake’s point is that the most severely retarded humans are essentially vegetables in terms of brains. So by the same argument that extends rights to higher order animals, we would have to extend rights to these other things. Reductio ad absurdum, right?
Precisely. I recognize that humans have different rights according to their capacity; I extend the same recognition of rights to other animals, based ont heir capacity.
Pedro, I support voluntary euthanasia for humans. Does that answer your question?
How does an infant, completely dependent on its caregiver, have a right to autonomy? How does a profoundly retarded person have a right to be free from pain? There’s no law that says “You can’t cause a retarded person any pain.”
Either that, or deny rights to humans who lack brains. That’s the option I take: if a person
Has never had the capacity for pleasure, pain, interests, desires, self-awareness, etc. (maybe 3 out of 5? This is a fuzzy group); or
Has no chance of ever having these capacities again,
then I believe they do not have direct rights. Euthanizing Terri Schiavo was not, I believe, something done for her sake; I believe it was something done for the sake of the people surrounding her. Keeping her alive would similarly be something done to benefit those around her.
First of all, the inability to exercise a right does not equal the absence of one. Second, infants to have a right to autonomy in many senses. It is true that parents get to override this right in some scenarios (like when locking the infant in a play pen is important for safety), but there is a clear reason for when we’re willing to deny that infant rights.
As for there being no law that says “You can’t cause a retarded person any pain,” this is either false or trivial. You’re right, no law is written with those words. But that is the intent of many laws.
These are what’s called prima facie rights: that is, all things being equal, you CAN’T legally cause a retarded person any pain. Doing so is considered assault: if I approach a retarded woman and stab her with a needle, I’ll get thrown in jail, and rightly so.
However, it’s just a prima facie right. Sometimes, all things aren’t equal, and there’s an overriding concern. If I approach a retarded woman and stab her with a needle, and then inject her with the medication she needs to live, and I’m her authorized caregiver, then I won’t be thrown in jail, because another, stronger right has come into play.
Same thing with an infant. Though it may theoretically be true that an infant has a prima facie right to autonomy, the overriding right to proper guardianship from a parent inevitably eclipses that right to autonomy. It’s meaningless to talk about a prima facie right that’s always eclipsed.
I thought about dragging Terri Schiavo into this, but decided not to because euthanasia was her choice (expressed to her husband before the accident). Doesn’t seem like a very relevant case, for that reason.
I believe that, just as humans have unique rights, they also have unique responsibilities. For example, humans have a responsibility not to cause excessive and unnecessary suffering in the animals they kill for food. Cats and wolves and spiders do not have such a responsibility. There’s a moral difference between a human being torturing a bird and a cat doing so, and that difference lies, not in the rights of the bird, but in the responsibility of the human.
Good point. Though IMHO in the Terry Schiavo case, if she hadn’t explicity said she wanted to die while in that state, letting her die would have been much more morally gray.
Nevertheless, and I realize this is a controversial statement, I do NOT think euthanizing her, absent a statement of her wishes, would be morally gray (that is, I recognize others disagree, but it’s not something that would trouble me at all). Given her condition, I believe she was dead, from an ethical perspective, and would never live again; killing her body would deny no right to any sentient creature.
So your argument is that your desire for a tasty steak outweighs a cow’s desire not to spend its life in suffering–is that correct?
If so, please support that weighting of rights. While you’re at it, explain why a baby’s right to life isn’t similarly eclipsed by my own desire for tasty baby steaks.
I keep simulposting with LHoD and having to compare his articulate response to my own, but at the risk of that happening again:
The above isn’t a genuine argument. It’s like me saying that your right to life ends where my interest in eating you eclipses it. Well, obviously, the debate is over whether or not my interest in pleasure (if I liked that sort of thing ) overrides your right to live. Clearly it does not. Just as an infants desire to be free of the play pen does not eclipse its parents right to raise their children safely.
No. And please quit with the strawmen. I’m getting sick of them. I’ve never said that a cow doesn’t have a desire not to spend its life in suffering. In fact, in my very first post in this thread, I took a position to the contrary.
A cows right to live, to exist (it should be obvious, but note that this is not the same thing has a right "not to spend its life in suffering) is outweighed by my desire for a tasty steak.
) overrides your right to live. Clearly it does not. Just as an infants desire to be free of the play pen does not eclipse its parents right to raise their children safely.