On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:18:01 +0100, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Dutch" > wrote in message news:4g8mi.113716$1i1.56876@pd7urf3no...
>> pearl wrote:
>> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Cwbki.98803$1i1.5893@pd7urf3no...
>> >
>> > on 08 July 2007 21:10 GMT
>> >
>> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>> "Dutch" > wrote
>> >>> ..
>> >>>>>>>>>> The characteristic they lack is being human -
>> >>> <..> >>>>>
>> >>>> humans possess a characteristic that no other
>> >>>> species possesses that we know of, the capacity of moral personhood.
>> >>> 'Centre for Bioethics / IX Annual Symposium on Biomedicine,
>> >>> Ethics and Society
>> >>>
>> >>> Abstract of Keynote talk:
>> >>>
>> >>> Marc Bekoff
>> >>>
>> >>> PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Colorado, USA
>> >>> (Printable version, pdf)
>> >>>
>> >>> Wild justice, cooperation, and fair play: Can animals be moral beings?
>> >>>
>> >>> Can nonhuman animals (hereafter animals) be moral beings? Yes
>> >>> they can. Research in cognitive ethology, evolutionary biology,
>> >>> and social neuroscience, along with common sense, clearly shows
>> >>> that animals are emotional and empathic beings (including mice who
>> >>> have been shown to display empathy)
>>
>> >> That's all well and good, but these observations virtually all refer to
>> >> familial social relationships, they say nothing about inter-species
>> >> relationships in animals, which is what we are focusing on in aaev.
>> >
>> > Goalpost move. And you go on to write (repeat) in another post in
>> > this thread on 08 July 2007 23:39 GMT (two and a half hours later)...
>> >
>> > "The case is as follows:
>> >
>> > Humans are classed as moral persons based on their cognitive capabilities
>> > along with potential, history or behaviour as moral beings. It is this
>> > "moral personhood" that qualifies them for full moral consideration and
>> > rights. No member of any other species has ever demonstrated the behaviour
>> > or characteristics that would qualify them to be called "moral persons" in
>> > the way that humans are. There is in *my* mind sufficient room for doubt in
>> > higher apes that they should be included."
>> >
>> > Nothing about inter-species relationships there. Of course not..
>> >
>> >> There is
>> >> a wide gap between human-animal relationships and our perception of those
>> >> relationships when the animal is a family member and when it is prey (food).
>>
>> > 'Cognitive dissonance <snip>
>>
>> Non-sequitur
>
>Evasion. It follows.

It doesn't follow. Moral personhood is related to the capability for
moral agency. Non humans have not demonstrated it.


> And you said this was a great story..
>
>11 July 2007 07:58
>
> wrote
>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1944147/4

So what?