« Euro effects | Main | Love and hate »

August 24, 2005

Comments

Paddy Carter

" Nor can it be because humans have some functionings like higher consciousness that animals don't - because we presume that the severely mentally handicapped or people in persistent vegetative states have rights.
"

how important is it for our moral frameworks to be entirely logically cohesive across all domains? It has always struck me that the proper response to the above point is: "yes, well perhaps if we were being purely logical, we would assign fewer rights to the brain dead, but irrationally we choose to treat our own species differently than we do others. Get over it, Spock"

Rob Read

How about adding Animal rights "volunteers" to the above?

If you don't like animal testing, then volunteer and sign a waiver. The extra feedback they get from a willinng volunteer will be superb.

Tim Worstall

For me it would be who gets to decide what is in the contract, the breach of which leads to the experimentation.
Forging the ace of spades ? Once a capital crime. Being uppity? At times and places a capital crime. Being a Jew? Wait, didn’t someone do that? (I know, Godwin’s Law already).

Andrew

Same danger as with capital punishment though - convicting an innocent man would presumably be too aesthetically distasteful to make it a viable proposition.

Rob

I'd argue that this would be exactly like torturing people to death: punishment should be humane, in that, most obviously in the case of violent crime but perhaps in other cases too, it would be obvious hypocrisy to punish someone for doing something morally wrong by doing something similarly wrong to them.

Rob Read

"it would be obvious hypocrisy to punish someone for doing something morally wrong by doing something similarly wrong to them."

But it would be rather satisfying for a large number of people.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad