"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> How can you say that, when it does follow (*inevitably*).

It doesn't follow.

>> Moral personhood is related to the capability for
>> moral agency. Non humans have not demonstrated it.
>
> Yes, they have. You've already accepted that they do, above.

No, I didn't. Social behaviours among family members do not equal moral
agency.

> So what's going on? This is where Dutch kindly demonstrates
> how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and
> behavior are in conflict.
>
> 'Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes
> the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two
> conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior
> that conflicts with one's beliefs. More precisely, it is the perception
> of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is
> defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion,
> belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that
> contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the
> mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify
> existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict)
> between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this
> hypothetical drive. Some of these examined how beliefs often
> change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.
> ..'
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Non sequitur


>> > And you said this was a great story..
>> >
>> >11 July 2007 07:58
>> >
>> > wrote
>> >
>> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1944147/4
>>
>> So what?
>
> Find some moral character instead of continually wriggling.

Stop projecting your inadequacies.