On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, ravi wrote:
> IMHO, this is getting more abstract, actually than necessary. in the real
> world, when we decide the question of comatose-vs-ill we reason in ways that
> assume the consensus. given such consensus rules/goals/values, in the real
> world (not the miles jackson fashionably thin world ;-)), singer shows that
> there is nothing in those rules to exclude their application to animals. to
> really make your case, you have to provide some system where attention to
> avoidance of suffering, consciousness (or any of the other values that we are
> assuming in this debate) are not values and part of the consensus that drives
> decisions and actions, not provide improbable scenarios!
>
> --ravi
I guess I submit "improbable" scenarios because human history is a series of improbable scenarios. It's improbable in many societies that people would choose (or even want to choose) their spouse; thus we should not treat our moral values related to freedom and choice as the necessary, inalterable bases of family life.
--And just so with the "self-evident" rules about suffering and consciousness you lean on in this thread: these rules are social products, not human universals!
Thought experiment: we live in a society (as numerous societies in the past) that believes in spirits that animate the rocks, trees, and animals. In this worldview, everything in the natural world is sacred and supernatural, and humans are a part of it. Imagine a Singer in this society makes the argument that conscious, animal life is especially deserving of rights and respect. Under the social consensus of this society, is Singer's argument valid?
It's banal, but it comes down to this: if people in our society conceptualize no meaningful differences in consciousness between humans and animals, Singer's position will become as taken-for granted element of our moral universe. If--as the majority of people in our society do now--people maintain some sort of meaningful distinction between humans and animals ("the consciousness of a chicken is not much like the consciousness of a human"), Singer's argument will be marginalized and rejected.
Miles