>Ya know, this argument just does not work. For one, "valuing human
>life" per se is not a universal moral value at all. The Romans ans
>Aztecs weren't really big on it. Secondly, in addition to being
>human, you are also male, white, Australian, a conscious being, of
>such and such age, heterosexual,
I don't exclusively identify as being those things though. I find myself identifying just as much with females, non-whites, non-Australians and non-heterosexuals. Whereas I seldom identify with trees. I am a little autistic, but not *that* autistic.
>a being occupying space and time, an English speaker, existing in
>the 21st century, of such and such a weight, and a think the
>quantity of which is 1. How come "human" is the qualifying
>distinction?
It just is.
>Whatever "human" is. It's sort of hard to find a trait shared by all
>humans that leaves out all other animals.
No, its easy. Among other things humans are distinguished by the ability to breed with each other. We can't breed with kangaroos, or even other apes. Any more than kangaroos can breed with crocodiles.
That is absolutely defining. So leave out such philosophical twaddle.
In the context of this particular debate, it is also relevant that other animals are quite unable to share our cultural understandings. Whereas any human would be capable at birth of grasping the norms of any human culture, past or present) and becoming a part of that culture.
You just can't say that about kangaroos or crocodiles. They just wouldn't fit in as citizens of ancient Greece, or modern Australia. Wouldn't matter how young you started their education, they aren't going to pick it up. It follows that we can stop eating animals, but that they are never going to reciprocate and stop trying to eat us.
There's no percentage in it then. ;-)
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas