On Jun 29, 6:17 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > We've made a good case.
>
> >> You haven't. You've assumed that which you must
> >> demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show
> >> that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it
> >> has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water.
>
> > The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. You've
> > got to specify a morally relevant difference which justifies the
> > discrimination. It's called the formal principle of justice. You
> > haven't shown why we should reject it. Nor have you shown that widely
> > held views about human equality can be defended without recourse to
> > the formal principle of justice.
>
> The basis for discrimination is sentience,

A lot of nonhuman animals are sentient as well.

> the very same basis that you use
> to justify why it's acceptable to slaughter bugs. The argument from marginal
> cases fails because marginal humans still possess some human quality that we
> value, some possibility of a rich inner life, even though they may appear
> severely impaired to normal people. As Wetlesen puts it, they are moral
> persons even if they lack the capability to be moral actors.

Well, I suppose I should have a look at this article, but I find this
a singularly unconvincing line of argument. I don't think that
impaired humans have a "possibility" of a rich inner life in a sense
that nonhumans don't.