# The three most important win-win-win measures **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2015, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696 "2015-08-24T06:36:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/61 "2015-08-24T21:58:32Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I can. > > Pigs, cows, and chickens are not human. that is not morally relevant, unless you can give an argument why being human is morally relevant. The problem is: it is an arbitrary criterion, because being human is one of the many possible ways to be. One can also be white, male, simian, primate, mammal, vertebrate,… Why did you say “Pigs, cows, and chickens are not human” instead of “Pigs, cows, and chickens are not white” or “Pigs, cows, and chickens are not primate” or “Chickens are not mammals” or…? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/62 "2015-08-24T22:17:51Z")
> [@Earthheart](#): > > that sounds like a straw man > But if you eat meat, you enforce your ideals and values on someone else (an animal), and that means that you say that enforcing values on others is ok. **So in that case you cannot complain if someone enforces his values on you** Well then, how would you like it if people enforced their values on you? ---
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/63 "2015-08-24T22:20:29Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > The morally relevant difference between humans and cows is that _humans are not cows_. You can point at differences, but not at morally relevant differences if you point at arbitrary differences. Your difference between humans and cows was arbitrary because one can equally take many other possible differences. For example humans and cows are not invertebrates. Males are not females. Cows are not chickens. Humans are not plants. > [@](#): > > Cows are not sapient. neither was that mentally disabled human > [@](#): > > Even the most developmentally disadvantaged human being is far more aware of their existence and mortality, and more capable of understanding and philosophizing about it, and capable of exercising free will, than the most genetically perfect cow in the world will ever be. that is not true. Cows have higher (emotional,…) intelligence levels than some humans. There are cows, pigs, dogs and chickens with higher mental capacities than some disabled humans. Some adult humans have a mental age of a baby of 3 months, whereas the mental age of pigs can reach a child of 3 years. > [@](#): > > Bull. A species, at least on the higher level, is defined as that population of organisms which are capable of mating and producing offspring that are of the same nature as themselves. that is not morally relevant. It is too farfetched to claim that a sentient being (with the mental capacity of a chicken) deserves basic rights when that being has close family members who could have gotten fertile offspring with someone else. The right not to be used against ones will does not refer to fertility of offspring, so offspring is not relevant for this basic right. The right refers to ones will, so having a will (being sentient) is relevant. > [@](#): > > Two humans can breed and produce a human child. A human cannot breed with an orangutan, or a cow, or a pig. a human-chimpansee hybrid is not unlikely, given the fact that lion-tiger, dolphin-killer whale, horse-donkey, lama-camel, sheep-goat… hybrids are all possible. And all the interlediates between a human (you) and a cow once existed. Take the time travel machine and take all our human and cow ancestors to the present and put them in a row. You are on the far right, next to you is your mother, your grandfather and so on, till the common ancestor of you and a modern cow. This ancestor is in the middle of the row, and continuing to the left, we end up with a modern cow. In this row you are not able to point at a boundary between humans and non-humans. If you are human, the so is you mother, and so is your grandfather,… You could breed with someone a bit further in the row, who lived 1000 years ago. And that person could breed with someone further in the row who lived 2000 years ago, and so on. What if all thos intermediates still lived? You cannot base the idea of human rights on the arbitrary fact that intermediates no longer live. > [@](#): > > _Double_ bull. Race != species. Yes, and species != order and species != phylum and species != genus and genus != class Why do you focus on species? ---
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/64 "2015-08-24T22:28:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Easy. If you are forced to chose between eating a nice, fat baby and a chicken to stay alive, which would you choose? If your friend is forced to chose between eating his neighbour’s baby and a mentally disabled orphan baby from another continent, with another skin colour and with a short life expectancy, which would he choose? Would you disagree if he chooses the orphan baby? Would you say that your friend is a racist when he chooses to eat that baby with the other skin colour? ---
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/65 "2015-08-24T22:37:32Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I have personally known a person who was deaf and blind from birth and who has no meaningful way of communicating with any other human being. He is completely incapable of living on his own and requires 24-hour supervision, because he is unable to feed or bathe himself, go to the bathroom on his own, or in any way function as a member of society. > > He is, nonetheless, far more intelligent, interesting, and deserving of protection and mercy than a chicken would ever be, and you insult him and all other people like him by comparing them to livestock. I don’t know that person, so it is impossible for me to compare that person with livestock. I do know that some humans exist who are less intelligent the chickens. Concering insulting people: I can easily reply that you insult chickens. But the question is: who deserves basic rights such as the right not to be used against one’s will. Are we allowed to arbitrarily select a group of individuals who deserve this right? Or are we going to avoid any kind of arbitrariness by granting this right to really everyone? > [@](#): > > I suspect that you don’t have much experience with developmentally impaired humans _or_ with food animals. I am a foster parent of a mentally disabled human, my sister works in an institute for mentally disabled humans, I spent a lot of my youth on a dairy farm, I do a lot of investigations about livestock farming, and I am familiar with agricutural science and with cognitive science. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/66 "2015-08-24T22:40:42Z")
“Humans have special intrinsic value” is no more or less arbitrary than “life has special intrinsic value”, **Earthheart**. All moral systems start with similarly arbitrary assumptions. I accept that life has special intrinsic value, and that human life has special intrinsic value beyond other life. There’s nothing special about the first assumption as opposed to the second. ---
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/67 "2015-08-24T22:46:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s morally relevant to me. simply saying that it is morally relevant to you does not make it morally relevant. Do you agree with these (cfr REDACTED When it comes to respecting the basic right (not to be used as merely a means), a criterion or property is morally irrelevant to a higher degree if more of the following conditions are met: 1. the property is arbitrary (there is no non-circular rule that selects the property out of a multitude of similar kinds of properties), or 2. the property is not intrinsic (it does not refer solely to the individual possessing the property), or 3. the property is inherently difficult to detect, define or delimit (the property is non-empirical or there are no scientific criteria and methods – not even in principle – to clearly see whether the property is present). When it comes to respecting the basic right, a criterion is certainly morally relevant in relation to an equal treatment and moral evaluation between individuals, if it is an identifiable or measurable (i.e. empirical) property that: 1. we could derive from an impartial (non-arbitrary) point of view (the moral viewpoint), and 2. is clearly related (i.e. not in a far-fetched way) with the notion of the basic right, 3. follows from moral virtues or valuable feelings (i.e. emotions that are important in our moral decision making, such as emotions that motivate us to help others or to respect rights), and 4. does not satisfy any of the three conditions of moral irrelevancy. > [@](#): > > Moral systems rely on shared assumptions, and while yours may include “animals are equivalent to people”, mine does not. I do not assume that animals and humans are equal, I derived it from more basic moral assumptions, the same assumptions that you have. > [@](#): > > There’s nothing superior intrinsically about yours. agree. Both our ethical systems are equally valid, on the condition that both are equally coherent (consistent, non-arbitrary) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/68 "2015-08-24T22:49:49Z")
> [@Earthheart](#): > > I do not assume that animals and humans are equal, I derived it from more basic moral assumptions, the same assumptions that you have. Not the same basic moral assumptions, since one of mine is “humans have special intrinsic value over all other creatures on Earth”. ---
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/69 "2015-08-24T22:52:30Z")
> [@Itself](#): > > Yup. I don’t have anything to add to this, beyond suggesting again that suggesting that the ideas in the OP are going to fix everything and move us all into some sort of perfect utopia, I did not claim that they are going to fix everything. > [@](#): > > then I’d like to see some data or models indicating that (1) the dire predictions of the OP are reasonable; for all the claims there are either scientific studies or logical arguments. > [@](#): > > (2) the measures in the OP would have the beneficial effects listed; feel free to refer to studies or arguments that indicate that one of the benefits is not true. > [@](#): > > and (3) the measures in the OP won’t have any detrimental side effects. if you know of any possible side effects, please feel free to share. > [@](#): > > If, on the other hand, you want to discuss the ideas of the OP in moral terms, then please indicate why I should care about your particular framework or morality or ethics, as opposed to one based on utilitarianism, consequentialism, human (possibly as opposed to animal) rights, some sort of individualism, etc. a lot of the benefits that I mention are perfectly in line with e.g. utilitarianism or any other coherent ethical system that we can value. ---
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/70 "2015-08-24T22:56:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > **Earthheart** , how intelligent do you think a chicken actually is, and how developmentally disabled do you think a human being would have to be to have the equivalent intelligence of an average chicken? some mentally disabled humans have the mental age of a baby of 3 months. Chickens are capable of solving puzzles etc that a baby is not able to solve. The same goes for developing friendships, counting, taking care of offspring, passing knowledge… ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/71 "2015-08-24T22:59:45Z")
> [@Earthheart](#): > > If your friend is forced to chose between eating his neighbour’s baby and a mentally disabled orphan baby from another continent, with another skin colour and with a short life expectancy, which would he choose? Would you disagree if he chooses the orphan baby? Would you say that your friend is a racist when he chooses to eat that baby with the other skin colour? I’m sorry, but we are discussing the moral and ethical equivalence between humans and animals, so would you mind actually answering the question I asked instead of dancing around it? ---
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/72 "2015-08-24T23:03:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You have put the cart before the horse, because your premise is _only_ valid if we accept your condition that all animals are the equivalent of people. You have to convince of this _first_, got it? I derived the proposition that animals are equal to humans, based on our shared moral values (moral assumptions) and some factual knowledge about biology (evolutionary biology, neurobiology). Our shared moral values are that we should not discriminate, that we have to avoid arbitrariness in selecting the group of rightholders, that a property is certainly morally (ir)relevant if… (see [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18628375&postcount=67](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18628375&postcount=67)) So, we have for example the basic right not to be used against one’s will. You value this right. But how do you know whether individual A gets this right and B does not? How would you decide who gets this right? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/73 "2015-08-24T23:05:24Z")
> [@Earthheart](#): > > I derived the proposition that animals are equal to humans, based on our shared moral values (moral assumptions) and some factual knowledge about biology (evolutionary biology, neurobiology). > Our shared moral values are that we should not discriminate, that we have to avoid arbitrariness in selecting the group of rightholders, that a property is certainly morally (ir)relevant if… (see [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18628375&postcount=67](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18628375&postcount=67)) > So, we have for example the basic right not to be used against one’s will. You value this right. But how do you know whether individual A gets this right and B does not? How would you decide who gets this right? Is one of them human? That one gets the right to use non-humans for their own purposes, though this does not include cruel treatment (but can include slaughter for food and other resources). That’s one of my most basic moral assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/74 "2015-08-24T23:14:17Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Animals don’t have values so it is impossible to force ones values upon an animal. it is not fair to simply deny someone’s values. The animal values his well-being, the things that he wants. > [@](#): > > If you don’t believe me, go find a hungry tiger and try convincing the tiger that everyone has a right to live. the tiger does not understand the notion of rights, but his hunger indicates that he wants food in order to live. The tiger should not force his value on his prey, but we can both easily find a “justification”: for the tiger, killing is neccesary for survival. For you it is not. > [@](#): > > I suspect you will fail with some spectacular results. Well spectacular for anyone who might be watching. why did you actually refer to the tiger when you were forcing your values on a pig, not a tiger? The animals that you eat did not force theoir values on you, they did not attack you, so you still have no reason to force your values on those innocents. If you want to eat hungry tigers that attack you when you need that meat to survive, go ahead, but don’t force your values on innocents… > [@](#): > > Do yourself a favor, go read ‘The Ultimate Resource’ and put down whatever doom and gloom books you have been reading. I suspect there is a Paul Erhlich book in there somewhere. And note that the Malthusian folks have been consistently wrong. The Mathusians were consistently right in pointing at the fact that natural resources are finite. The claims where Malthusians were consistently wrong are not relevant, because I do not make such claims. ---
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/75 "2015-08-24T23:18:51Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > But that every life-form with a CNS is equal in rights to humans? Not self-evident. indeed, such claims have to be derived. Staring with our moral values and scientific knowledge, we can derive a claim that comes pretty close. But the actual claim is that everyone and everything, without any arbitrary exceptions, is equal in basic rights such as the right not to be used against one’s will. This claim best fits our shared moral value that we should avoid any discrimination such as racism, sexism or speciesism. ---
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/76 "2015-08-24T23:20:56Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Well then, how would you like it if people enforced their values on you? I would not like it. That is why I am consistently against enforcing one’s values. ---
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/77 "2015-08-24T23:29:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > “Humans have special intrinsic value” is no more or less arbitrary than “life has special intrinsic value”, **Earthheart**. that is true. Taking “all humans” or “all living beings” as the group of rightholders is arbitrary. I give the basic right not to be used against one’s will to everyone and everything, including all non-living things. No arbitrariness. Of course, a right not to be killed is trivially satisfied for a non-living thing, so it is easy to give this right to non-living things. Similarly, the basic right is trivially satisfied for non-willing entities. If you are allowed to choose your victims arbitrarily, then so am I and so is everyone, and you cannot want that. > [@](#): > > All moral systems start with similarly arbitrary assumptions. that is not true. A moral system that says that everyone and everytging gets the basic right is less arbitrary than a system that says that all and only homo sapiens get the basic right. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/78 "2015-08-24T23:31:49Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Earthheart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Earthheart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthheart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/79 "2015-08-24T23:34:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Is one of them human? I was talking about the right not to be used against one’s will. Where is the reference to humans in this right? How do you know that this right only refers to humans (instead of e.g. mammals) if the word human does not even appear in its formulation? > [@](#): > > That one gets the right to use non-humans for their own purposes if you are allowed to refer to an arbitrary group in your formulation of a right, then so am I. Then I am allowed to consider the right to use non-white people for my own purposes, as slaves. Or the right to use iiandyiiii… ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696/80 "2015-08-24T23:36:10Z")
> [@Earthheart](#): > > that is true. Taking “all humans” or “all living beings” as the group of rightholders is arbitrary. I give the basic right not to be used against one’s will to everyone and everything, including all non-living things. No arbitrariness. Of course, a right not to be killed is trivially satisfied for a non-living thing, so it is easy to give this right to non-living things. Similarly, the basic right is trivially satisfied for non-willing entities. > If you are allowed to choose your victims arbitrarily, then so am I and so is everyone, and you cannot want that. Everyone already is “allowed” to do this. Since most life requires the use of other life, then a judgment about which sorts of use are allowed and which are not is “arbitrary” (as are all moral assumptions). > [@](#): > > that is not true. A moral system that says that everyone and everytging gets the basic right is less arbitrary than a system that says that all and only homo sapiens get the basic right. Why is this “less” arbitrary? Seems just as arbitrary to me, especially when you’re assigning rights that are irrelevant to various things (e.g. the right to not be killed to things that are not alive). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-three-most-important-win-win-win-measures/728696.md?page=5)