"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> 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.

Every living organism is sentient to some extent, it's matter of degree.
Wetlesen's explanation explains how I think as well as how you act, i.e.
towards animals which you dismiss as "non-sentient".

>> 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.

Without reading the article.

I don't think that
> impaired humans have a "possibility" of a rich inner life in a sense
> that nonhumans don't.

Why not? Animals cannot have such an inner life if one has never exhibited
such capacity outwardly. As long as a human displays brain activity there is
a possibility that they are engaged in vivid human dreams about life. And
what is wrong with valuing some humans merely for sentimental reasons? We do
it for many animals as well.