"Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: theyâre only animals." â Theodor W. Adorno
I haven't really waded into the discussion on animal rights, but from what I believe so far, yes blah blah, animals have to have their modicum of rights as well. But what really grinds my gears are animal activists who go on and on about pictures of safari hunting, etc. There's a certain extent that I would care about animals and cruelty (experimentation, pet abuse, etc), but until we stop eating battery farmed animals, I don't think much moral high ground can be taken.
BTW, I wonder why Fish decided became a solipsist. (No insults, just wondering)
I didn't. You missed the point, so it doesn't matter. The idea is that a solipsist would perceive no one as having a theory of mind essentially for the same reason that you percieve non-human creatures as lacking one.
The central argument of the book is an expansion of the utilitarian idea that "the greatest good of the greatest number" is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour. Singer believes that there is no reason not to apply this to other animals, arguing that the boundary between human and âanimalâ is completely arbitrary. There are more differences between a great ape and an oyster, for example, than between a human and a great ape, and yet the former two are lumped together as âanimalsâ whilst we are âhumanâ.
In particular, he argues that while animals show lower intelligence than the average human, many severely intellectually challenged humans show equally diminished, if not lower, mental capacity, and that some animals have displayed signs of intelligence sometimes on par with that of human children. Singer therefore argues intelligence does not provide a basis for providing nonhuman animals any less consideration than such intellectually challenged humans. [16] He popularized the term "speciesism", which was originally coined by Richard D. Ryder, to describe the practice of privileging humans over other animals.
Yes, actually. Asherlee mentioned him only a few hours ago.
Singer believes that there is no reason not to apply this to other animals, arguing that the boundary between human and âanimalâ is completely arbitrary.
I agree with this, although I recognize the problems that would arise if it were to actually be applied.
In particular, he argues that while animals show lower intelligence than the average human, [...]
Even this consensus is unsound and the criteria is largely subjective.
