On 4/12/2012 5:43 AM, Zerkon wrote:
> In article<qdydnaX0Os30yRvSnZ2dnUVZ5h2dnZ2d@giganews. com>,
> says...
>> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
>> individual members of different species.
>>
>
> Not correct. Ants herd, 'milk' and protect aphids. It's a great
> assumption either way if this is defined as some aspect of "giving
> consideration" however the associated behaviors humans regard as such
> are still proved fact so a denial that a sense of consideration is
> present can not be arrived at logically.
That's not the kind of consideration being prescribe by "ar" passivists.
They advocate that humans cause no harm to animals, or allow no harm
to happen, that they would not cause or allow to happen to a human. We
don't morally allow painful medical experimentation and testing to be
done on humans, so they say we shouldn't do it with animal subjects
either. No animals give that kind of consideration.
> Symbiotic relationships permeate many if not all forms of life. For
> instance, no one can claim certainty that one of the hundreds of species
> of micro-organisms living inside each human that enable humans to live
> are not "giving consideration to the interests" of their host.
That's not moral consideration.
> Do you have a dog?
Yes. I do give moral consideration to her interests, but not as much as
I give to the interests of my son. The "ar" passivists say I should
give the dog's interests equal consideration to those of my son, and no
more consideration to my son's than to any other person's or other
animals. But it doesn't work that way. If I arrive to pick my son up
from school and find the school is on fire and my son and another child
are in the classroom, and I have an opportunity to rescue one child
only, then I'm afraid little Billy's parents are going to be grieving
while I tuck my son safely in his bed that evening. That's just how it is.