• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          ok well that line of argument falls prey to a line-drawing fallacy. there is a clear difference between people and non-human animals. even if there is no singular trait, or no less-than-complete set of traits that we can point to as the distinguishing mark, it is obvious that there is a difference or we wouldn’t discriminate between humans and non-human animals.

          SINCE THAT IS NOT WHERE YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE HEADING

          i would just say “we’re human” and, in light of the rebuttal to the NTT argument (which you weren’t conciously advancing), i think it’s that is sufficient.

          • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            it is obvious that there is a difference or we wouldn’t discriminate between humans and non-human animals.

            Isn’t this just the is-ought problem though? Just because we currently distinguish between animals and humans doesn’t mean we ought to.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Isn’t this just the is-ought problem though?

              i don’t think so. it’s clear that pigs aren’t human. they are different.

              • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’m not saying there are, but just because we currently murder pigs is not justification to continue killing them.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  living things are in competition and killing is a matter of course. it is natural. i think a special case must be made against killings. among humans, there are many (distinct) arguments against killing. among the ones i’ve heard, the ones which would also apply to animals are not ones that i personally believe.

                  • flamingos-cant@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    living things are in competition and killing is a matter of course. it is natural.

                    And?

                    i think a special case must be made against killings. among humans, there are many (distinct) arguments against killing. among the ones i’ve heard, the ones which would also apply to animals are not ones that i personally believe.

                    What do you believe? From what I’ve been able to gather from your replies to me and others, you put hold the following two beliefs:

                    1. That ‘human’ is a distinct category of being that makes us the only thing worthy of moral consideration;
                    2. That the practice of killing animals is so widespread, so normalised, that it must be morally OK, because if it were wrong, we wouldn’t practice it so widely;

                    I don’t think these are sound arguments.