On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, ravi wrote:
> singer answers this all or nothing argument decently well, even if you aren't
> an all out utilitarian. i am loathe to go into all the details... avoidance
> of pain, central nervous system, levels of consciousness, survival vs luxury,
> etc, etc. miles, if you are interested, i can find and forward relevant
> links... perhaps i owe it to the entire list, since animal rights may not be
> as familiar a subject as i assume? i will fill out the details tomorrow.
>
> --ravi
I've read a bit of Singer, and I understand these arguments, but I'm still confused. What is intrinsically better about life that has a central nervous system, responds to pain, and is more similar to humans? In any objective sense, plants are just as worthy of life as animals like us: they play a crucial role in the ecosystem, many are astoundingly beautiful, they're alive. It's strange to me that people like Singer use humans as the gold standard for life to respect and simultaneously argue that we shouldn't make a distinction between human and animal life.
It occurs to me that Singer does the same thing that he claims meat- users do. Just as meat eaters make an arbitrary distinction between humans and animals like chickens in terms of what life is worth sacrificing, Singer makes an arbitrary distinction between animals and plants about what life should be protected.
(I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it once more: at the bottom of all this moral philosophy is nothing more than some arbitrary assumptions made plausible by habit and ritual in a given society. "Why is human-like life more valuable and deserving of rights than plant life?" "It just is".)
Miles