Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Killing a Pigeon is Equal to Killing a Human

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:09:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with this argument (the argument from marginal cases, essentially). Some thoughts:

(1) Those that are granted moral status should have some level of sentience (e.g. thoughts, emotions, pain, or anything else; not necessarily all). Ants don't feel pain and aren't sentient, so I doubt they can actually be granted a right to life. So the ant example is false.

(2) The argument from marginal cases establishes a *right to life* to both pigeons and humans, but it doesn't establish that killing a pigeon is equal to killing a human. The title of this thread is misleading. A utilitarian interpretation of the argument from marginal cases is consequentialist, so also taken into account are the *consequences* of the killing. It depends on how much pain results from the death of the pigeon vs the death of the human. Only if both pigeon and human are missed equally does the thread's title hold as true, and the argument doesn't establish that.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 9:21:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.
You're begging the question here. This also has no relevance to the argument which comes afterwards.
In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).
Not if "P" is "being a human being".
3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.
Again,, not if P is "being a human being and not an animal", with whatever specifications that requires.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.
It's incredibly easy to give a moral framework wherein humans have a moral status based on humanity. It's essentially trivial. The only thing that animal-rights advocates can do is show why such frameworks are untenable, which this argument does not do (it just assumes that they're impossible from the start).
5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 1:14:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 8:09:23 AM, tejretics wrote:
I agree with this argument (the argument from marginal cases, essentially). Some thoughts:

(1) Those that are granted moral status should have some level of sentience (e.g. thoughts, emotions, pain, or anything else; not necessarily all). Ants don't feel pain and aren't sentient, so I doubt they can actually be granted a right to life. So the ant example is false.

The concept is essentially true, but my examples were not necessarily true. That's interesting, I didn't know that ants don't feel pain, I will use a koala in the future.

(2) The argument from marginal cases establishes a *right to life* to both pigeons and humans, but it doesn't establish that killing a pigeon is equal to killing a human. The title of this thread is misleading. A utilitarian interpretation of the argument from marginal cases is consequentialist, so also taken into account are the *consequences* of the killing. It depends on how much pain results from the death of the pigeon vs the death of the human. Only if both pigeon and human are missed equally does the thread's title hold as true, and the argument doesn't establish that.

This is a good point. So torturing someone to death would be more morally wrong than killing someone with little to no harm. Didn't think of this. What do you mean by "missed"? I don't think whether they are missed has a bearing on the morality of the murder, its still wrong....

My main point was that animals and humans would then be morally equal, so thus whatever it is immoral to do to a human is immoral to do to an animal. (Thus the title, mainly to grab attention tho XD )
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 1:18:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 9:21:31 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

You're begging the question here. This also has no relevance to the argument which comes afterwards.

Yes it does. If they are morally equal, then any moral harm done to either party, applies equally to the other party.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

Not if "P" is "being a human being".

An External reason

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.
Again,, not if P is "being a human being and not an animal", with whatever specifications that requires.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

It's incredibly easy to give a moral framework wherein humans have a moral status based on humanity. It's essentially trivial. The only thing that animal-rights advocates can do is show why such frameworks are untenable, which this argument does not do (it just assumes that they're impossible from the start).

So are you saying I need to include another premise to defend against that?

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 3:15:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 1:14:51 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:09:23 AM, tejretics wrote:
I agree with this argument (the argument from marginal cases, essentially). Some thoughts:

(1) Those that are granted moral status should have some level of sentience (e.g. thoughts, emotions, pain, or anything else; not necessarily all). Ants don't feel pain and aren't sentient, so I doubt they can actually be granted a right to life. So the ant example is false.

The concept is essentially true, but my examples were not necessarily true. That's interesting, I didn't know that ants don't feel pain, I will use a koala in the future.

I'm not sure about ant pain. Multiple insects can't feel pain, but ants display complex social behavior, so them feeling pain is possible. I apologize for saying "ants don't feel pain," I'm not really sure atm.


(2) The argument from marginal cases establishes a *right to life* to both pigeons and humans, but it doesn't establish that killing a pigeon is equal to killing a human. The title of this thread is misleading. A utilitarian interpretation of the argument from marginal cases is consequentialist, so also taken into account are the *consequences* of the killing. It depends on how much pain results from the death of the pigeon vs the death of the human. Only if both pigeon and human are missed equally does the thread's title hold as true, and the argument doesn't establish that.

This is a good point. So torturing someone to death would be more morally wrong than killing someone with little to no harm. Didn't think of this. What do you mean by "missed"? I don't think whether they are missed has a bearing on the morality of the murder, its still wrong....

Murder is wrong for two reasons: (1) infringing upon somebody's interests, and (2) the impact on people who loved the person murdered. The point (2) is something you haven't really considered. If a human is murdered, many people will feel quite depressed at that human's death -- perhaps the same for pigeons. So you have to weigh the suffering generated and pleasure lost before deciding it's "equal."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 3:17:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 9:21:31 AM, ShabShoral wrote:

Wouldn't one be able to present the argument after showing why a moral framework based on "being human" is false? So, your objections could be defended against in that means . . . so the argument is just presented as question begging, it doesn't need to be.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
KingofEverything
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:25:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.

What about in a case where a homeless savage would need to eat within 2 hours or he would die and he saw a pigeon as his first potential meal?

I would like to debate you on this sometime.
You're sweet. Thank you :) <3 -ESocial

I am sorry Debate.org -KingofEverything

You guys can stop the circlejerk started around the election. It stopped being funny faster than Mirza's anti-American rants. -Jonbonbon

It's like when the kid who makes an ugly sand castle on the beach goes and tries to kick down someone else's sand castle because he couldn't make one as good as that. -YYW
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:33:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 4:25:56 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.

What about in a case where a homeless savage would need to eat within 2 hours or he would die and he saw a pigeon as his first potential meal?

I would like to debate you on this sometime.

Why should the pigeon have to give up its life for that of the human? It has no moral obligation because they are both morally equal. So the human would not be justified in killing the pigeon.
KingofEverything
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:37:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 4:33:07 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:25:56 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.

What about in a case where a homeless savage would need to eat within 2 hours or he would die and he saw a pigeon as his first potential meal?

I would like to debate you on this sometime.

Why should the pigeon have to give up its life for that of the human? It has no moral obligation because they are both morally equal. So the human would not be justified in killing the pigeon.

In that case, the same goes for other animals. Is a falcon not allowed to eat a Pigeon? What would the man eat. However it ends, one will die. Without eating Pigeons, falcons would die, along with other predators.
You're sweet. Thank you :) <3 -ESocial

I am sorry Debate.org -KingofEverything

You guys can stop the circlejerk started around the election. It stopped being funny faster than Mirza's anti-American rants. -Jonbonbon

It's like when the kid who makes an ugly sand castle on the beach goes and tries to kick down someone else's sand castle because he couldn't make one as good as that. -YYW
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:40:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 4:37:49 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:33:07 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:25:56 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.

What about in a case where a homeless savage would need to eat within 2 hours or he would die and he saw a pigeon as his first potential meal?

I would like to debate you on this sometime.

Why should the pigeon have to give up its life for that of the human? It has no moral obligation because they are both morally equal. So the human would not be justified in killing the pigeon.

In that case, the same goes for other animals. Is a falcon not allowed to eat a Pigeon? What would the man eat. However it ends, one will die. Without eating Pigeons, falcons would die, along with other predators.

Yes, I suppose that everything has to die then.
KingofEverything
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:41:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 4:40:01 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:37:49 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:33:07 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:25:56 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.

What about in a case where a homeless savage would need to eat within 2 hours or he would die and he saw a pigeon as his first potential meal?

I would like to debate you on this sometime.

Why should the pigeon have to give up its life for that of the human? It has no moral obligation because they are both morally equal. So the human would not be justified in killing the pigeon.

In that case, the same goes for other animals. Is a falcon not allowed to eat a Pigeon? What would the man eat. However it ends, one will die. Without eating Pigeons, falcons would die, along with other predators.

Yes, I suppose that everything has to die then.

Hello mister! Here are your two choices on the fate of animals! You could choose to have one pigeon die, or kill every living thing in the world!
You're sweet. Thank you :) <3 -ESocial

I am sorry Debate.org -KingofEverything

You guys can stop the circlejerk started around the election. It stopped being funny faster than Mirza's anti-American rants. -Jonbonbon

It's like when the kid who makes an ugly sand castle on the beach goes and tries to kick down someone else's sand castle because he couldn't make one as good as that. -YYW
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:56:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 4:41:37 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:40:01 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:37:49 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:33:07 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:25:56 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.

What about in a case where a homeless savage would need to eat within 2 hours or he would die and he saw a pigeon as his first potential meal?

I would like to debate you on this sometime.

Why should the pigeon have to give up its life for that of the human? It has no moral obligation because they are both morally equal. So the human would not be justified in killing the pigeon.

In that case, the same goes for other animals. Is a falcon not allowed to eat a Pigeon? What would the man eat. However it ends, one will die. Without eating Pigeons, falcons would die, along with other predators.

Yes, I suppose that everything has to die then.

Hello mister! Here are your two choices on the fate of animals! You could choose to have one pigeon die, or kill every living thing in the world!

Everything must die. To have one pigeon doe would be immoral, everything must die to maintain moral values.

The real answer to this is just to eat plants because plants don't have sentience and its therefore moral to eat them
KingofEverything
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:58:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 4:56:44 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:41:37 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:40:01 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:37:49 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:33:07 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:25:56 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.

What about in a case where a homeless savage would need to eat within 2 hours or he would die and he saw a pigeon as his first potential meal?

I would like to debate you on this sometime.

Why should the pigeon have to give up its life for that of the human? It has no moral obligation because they are both morally equal. So the human would not be justified in killing the pigeon.

In that case, the same goes for other animals. Is a falcon not allowed to eat a Pigeon? What would the man eat. However it ends, one will die. Without eating Pigeons, falcons would die, along with other predators.

Yes, I suppose that everything has to die then.

Hello mister! Here are your two choices on the fate of animals! You could choose to have one pigeon die, or kill every living thing in the world!

Everything must die. To have one pigeon doe would be immoral, everything must die to maintain moral values.

The real answer to this is just to eat plants because plants don't have sentience and its therefore moral to eat them

I would rebut that if this was a debate.
You're sweet. Thank you :) <3 -ESocial

I am sorry Debate.org -KingofEverything

You guys can stop the circlejerk started around the election. It stopped being funny faster than Mirza's anti-American rants. -Jonbonbon

It's like when the kid who makes an ugly sand castle on the beach goes and tries to kick down someone else's sand castle because he couldn't make one as good as that. -YYW
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 5:00:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 4:58:35 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:56:44 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:41:37 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:40:01 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:37:49 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:33:07 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:25:56 AM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.

What about in a case where a homeless savage would need to eat within 2 hours or he would die and he saw a pigeon as his first potential meal?

I would like to debate you on this sometime.

Why should the pigeon have to give up its life for that of the human? It has no moral obligation because they are both morally equal. So the human would not be justified in killing the pigeon.

In that case, the same goes for other animals. Is a falcon not allowed to eat a Pigeon? What would the man eat. However it ends, one will die. Without eating Pigeons, falcons would die, along with other predators.

Yes, I suppose that everything has to die then.

Hello mister! Here are your two choices on the fate of animals! You could choose to have one pigeon die, or kill every living thing in the world!

Everything must die. To have one pigeon doe would be immoral, everything must die to maintain moral values.

The real answer to this is just to eat plants because plants don't have sentience and its therefore moral to eat them

I would rebut that if this was a debate.

A debate is merely a discussion on an issue in a specific format. Tell me your rebuttal.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 5:07:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

Does objective moral law exist in the first place?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 5:11:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 5:07:05 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

Does objective moral law exist in the first place?

Yes, in order for this argument to work there needs to be objective moral law, I think...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 5:29:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 5:11:17 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 5:07:05 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

Does objective moral law exist in the first place?

Yes, in order for this argument to work there needs to be objective moral law, I think...

Well, if our morality is not objective, then it undermines the entirety of the argument.

Is our morality universal?

I read a book for my AP World History class. The book is widely lauded and won a Pulitzer Prize. It was almost 500 pages, and probably should've been 200. Anyway - the guy that wrote it was familiar with Polynesian cultures and sh!t like that. He noted that in certain hunter-gatherer tribes in Polynesia, cannibalism was widely practiced - most likely due to the lack of sufficient meat. What should we say about them?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 8:12:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.

Since the problem lies in the concept of objective differentiation itself - that is, the objective differentiation of anything - this argument could be expanded indefinitely. Therefore I think it's unhelpful to frame this as a problem regarding pigeons and humans; it is an epistemological question about how differentiation, borderline cases, and definition work.

Should we conclude that since we can find a marginal case in which the line between X and Y is blurred, X should be expanded to encompass Y completely? I figure that this is an ultimately untenable position, since marginal cases always present themselves. This leads me to conclude that the problem lies more in our concept of definition itself, where X is understood as necessarily self-contained and its definition completely settled. As long as we continue assuming that paradigm, either the dialectic will keep functioning endlessly, or we will be driven to abandoning the possibility of defining anything at all.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 5:59:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.

All humans have an inherent capacity for rational thought (a rational nature). This is why we consider humans to be persons and why we treat humans different than pigeons.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 9:58:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Killing a Pigeon is Equal to Killing a Human." Anything can be rationalized by academic standards. You can find a professor to legitimize and rationalize anything.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 12:11:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.

This reasoning seems like "in for a penny, in for a pound". If the marginal cases have full and equal moral status, then animals have full and equal moral status as well. That appears to be the reasoning here, with the "P" being related to the degree to which an organism exhibits sentience, intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness.

My response to this is that I'm not in for a penny. The marginal cases (e.g. Terri Schaivo, fetuses, etc.) do not deserve full and equal moral status, but are frequently treated as if they did for practical reasons. It is easy for people distinguish between human and not human, but it is difficult to distinguish between low sentience/intelligence and high sentience/intelligence. Additionally, there exists substantial disagreement among the general population as to what "P" should be used to grant moral status. There would likely be a substantial adverse impact on social stability if the marginal cases were not treated as if they had full and equal moral status to a normal person.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 1:56:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 5:59:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:01:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
If you prove that animals and humans have no objective advantage over each other, then they would be morally equal. And therefore any moral law would apply equally to both.

In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

5) Humans have equal moral status to animals.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

So therefore, stepping on an ant, would be the same as murdering a human. Would love to discuss this.

All humans have an inherent capacity for rational thought (a rational nature). This is why we consider humans to be persons and why we treat humans different than pigeons.

Some humans don't even have the capacity for rational thought due to a disability. Thus, the claim that all humans have a capacity for rational thought is dubious.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 3:04:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 12:11:18 AM, Death23 wrote:
This reasoning seems like "in for a penny, in for a pound". If the marginal cases have full and equal moral status, then animals have full and equal moral status as well. That appears to be the reasoning here, with the "P" being related to the degree to which an organism exhibits sentience, intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness.

Correct.

My response to this is that I'm not in for a penny. The marginal cases (e.g. Terri Schaivo, fetuses, etc.) do not deserve full and equal moral status, but are frequently treated as if they did for practical reasons. It is easy for people distinguish between human and not human, but it is difficult to distinguish between low sentience/intelligence and high sentience/intelligence.

In humans or animal species?

Additionally, there exists substantial disagreement among the general population as to what "P" should be used to grant moral status. There would likely be a substantial adverse impact on social stability if the marginal cases were not treated as if they had full and equal moral status to a normal person.

I brought up this argument mainly to discuss animals rights.

The claim, "Do Animals have the same moral status as humans" (and thus killing a pigeon is just as bad as killing a pigeon)

Upsetting the social stability is not a reason for whether animals have the same moral status as humans. Whether society likes it or not is not a reason to continue being immoral, the impact of moral justification is greater than that of social stability.

(Basically because I don't give half a fvck what society thinks lol)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 3:18:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 4:23:33 AM, Romanii wrote:
Why should we accept that all human beings have equal moral significance?

For the reason that humans have no choice in what they are born like. Therefore any position they are put in from the start of their life is not their fault. To favor one party over another (and the favoring would be because of their situation) would be unfair, and thus all humans must have equal moral significance.

(I hope that made sense XD )
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 3:23:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 3:15:49 AM, tejretics wrote:
Murder is wrong for two reasons: (1) infringing upon somebody's interests, and (2) the impact on people who loved the person murdered. The point (2) is something you haven't really considered. If a human is murdered, many people will feel quite depressed at that human's death -- perhaps the same for pigeons. So you have to weigh the suffering generated and pleasure lost before deciding it's "equal."

Ahh, this is very interesting. Thank you.

So this would mean that:
If someone committed the same exact murder, one on someone who no one would know died, and another where the victim had loved ones that suffered as a result of the loss, the act of killing the person with no friends would be more moral than killing the person with friends?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 3:29:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2015 5:29:48 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Is our morality universal?

I read a book for my AP World History class. The book is widely lauded and won a Pulitzer Prize. It was almost 500 pages, and probably should've been 200. Anyway - the guy that wrote it was familiar with Polynesian cultures and sh!t like that. He noted that in certain hunter-gatherer tribes in Polynesia, cannibalism was widely practiced - most likely due to the lack of sufficient meat. What should we say about them?

Yes, the objective moral law would apply universally.

In order to establish an objective moral law, you need a great power in which to establish this law upon people. So I'm guessing this moral law would have to be dictated by a powerful country or the such, and would have to be *more* powerful than the Polynesian tribe. If this is true, then they are immoral.

(I hope something I said made sense, I kinda just typed whatever came to mind, might just be complete_shit.)
Romanii
Posts: 4,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 3:30:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 3:18:21 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 12/7/2015 4:23:33 AM, Romanii wrote:
Why should we accept that all human beings have equal moral significance?

For the reason that humans have no choice in what they are born like. Therefore any position they are put in from the start of their life is not their fault. To favor one party over another (and the favoring would be because of their situation) would be unfair, and thus all humans must have equal moral significance.

(I hope that made sense XD )

That's already presuming that they have equal moral worth, though... It's not "unfair" from a tabula rasa standpoint.