ravi wrote:
>Turbulo at aol.com wrote:
>
>
>2) I regard the struggles of and for human beings as being inherently
>more important than those on behalf of plants or animals. While I'm
>against cruelty to animals I don't believe they are or can be
>possessed of rights. One must be a rational being, actuallly or
>potentially, to have rights. Call me an anthropo-chauvinist. I plead
>guilty!
>
Beware of "chosen people"/"chosen beings" -- it is an evil seed. What
is it that makes a rational being's rights superior? Who defines
"rationality"? The rational being?
A person who is mentally retarded or mentally ill may not be "rational" -- does that mean they have no rights?
Once you grant special rights on the basis of special virtues like rationality or genetic superiority or gender or sexual orientation or what have you, you open the door for arguments supporting meritocracies and every other types of hierarchies..
It is entirely possible for humans to share the earth with other species and thereby to grow in compassion rather than "merit" or "reason." After all, as Sam Johnson observed: "Sir, if we all got what we deserved, we'd all be hung tomorrow."
Joanna