First of all, it seems like I in my great haste confused Tom Regan and peter Singer. Never mind, I am familiar with both of them, but Singer is indeed Australian so I will remove a line from my former post.
Well saying it is the same thing to kill a chimp as to kill a ******** person is much different than saying it is permissable to kill a ******** person as well as kill a chimp. If chimps and sufficiently mentally ******** people have the same amount of personhood (which is certainly an arguable point, although also controversial), then I dont see how it is illiberal to say that killing a chimp = killing a mentally ******** person. Perhaps, of course, this could be owing to the fact that my and your definition of liberal could be quite different.
I see the difference, but be aware that the difference is not so big in principle. Moral values should always be regarded in such a way as that we should see how they will function in a most extreme situation, and then we can clearly see that holding such a view might easily result in us "normal" humans having to "end the suffering"of the "sufficiently mentally ********".
Well the manner in which you articulated your post seems to suggest that you consider the political affiliation and character traits that you associate with the view we are discussing to be particularly distasteful, even extremely distasteful. It was definitely a leap for me though to go to "evil" and I apologize for the exaggeration.
Nothing to apologize for really, since your intervention in this thread was quite a good one.
I don't regard people as evil, even if their actions can be. And I admit that I find such political affiliations and corresponding characters quite unsavoury, so you do have a bit of a point nevertheless.
That's fine then. I said in my original response that I find your view unfair only if you consider Winner's quoted statement to be sufficient evidence on its own for the political affiliations and character traits you allude to. Since your view in reality seem to come as a culmination of all the things Winner has been known for endorsing in the past, I don't blame you. I will still object that Winner's view on chimps is indicitive of any distinct political affiliation on its own, though.
Yes that is quite a good summary of my meaning. But regarding your last sentence, it is basically correct, with the reservation that in my opinion it excludes certain political positions, at least.
I'm interested in your reasoning for this. Perhaps a good place to clarify would be your definition of "political". Depending on how broad your definition is, I might agree with you and I might not!
Very well, let's make an attempt to keep it short.
It is possible to found your ethics on an universal or a particular position. Universal would of course mean that you include everybody when you admit them certain rights, as long as they are humans. On the contrary a particular position would demand certain further criterias, typical excluding factors could be ethnicity, gender, physical shortcomings or in this case mental disability.
Now politics is pretty much the same regarding groups and the society as ethics is concerning the individual. Everybody's political position is based on some moral assumptions. Your views on human nature. Your views on equality. Your views on whether individuals have rights or not unconditionally. Your views on what is happiness and a good life, and how we can and should achieve this. And so on.
From that follows; who has the right to what and why?
And how should a society be organized to get important things done in a good way.
Clearly in almost any way you answer those questions there is a room for variation on the political spectre, but not an infinite one.
Agreed! My point of objection is simply to the idea that the view you quoted Winner as saying is, on its own, indicitive of any specific political ideologies or character traits. (depending, again, on how we define political)
Good that I didn't say such a thing then, it would be way too simple. But I maintain that it is a dangerous thing to say.
I'll read it within the next couple days. I'm short on time for such a long thread right now as I'm right int he midst of final exams for the quarter.
Very well. I was "unlucky" to post in the tail, then.
I'm certainly not saying you aren't allowed to have an opinion, I was just saying that in my view of things there are some good arguments in favor of Winner's statement that do not reflect any particular political ideologies or negative character traits.
Actually I have been comtemplating such ideas for years, and I am fully aware of the complexity of such ethical problems. That is why I rarely judge anybody (unless they openly declare their position themselves)without a generous amount of knowledge. But as I said, having perused not a few of this particular poster's posts (I may not be the most prolific poster around here, but I think few people read more threads than I do)and taking in account some 25 years with political activity, I have a certain background to get the whole picture.
In the context of my reply I was using fairness to mean something more akin to "reasonable". It was just my feeling that, on the face of it, it is not entirely reasonable of you to say that Winner's view, taken alone, is evidence for any specific political leanings or character traits. I may change my mind one we elaborate on things, but that was definitely my initial reaction.
As already stated, that is something I can almost entirely agree with.
Although still formally undecided, I lean towards "agree", particularly if we are concerned with the case of killing a chimp vs. kiling a mentally ******** person as it concerns the chimp or the person, not as it concerned friends, family members, etc..
I think that "personhood" is a good criterion for issues pertaining to right-to-life, and I dont see any specific reason to believe that a chimp and a sufficiently ******** person (provided their retardation is irreversable) posess different degrees of personhood. As such, their respective right to life is about equal. Now I will change my answer a bit if we begin to factor in that the ******** person may have family and/or loved ones who value him or her highly, but we are then talking about something vaguely akin to property rights rather than right to life, in my view.
This is however something I can't agree with, and using property in this context I find inacceptable. For me, as for Kant, only humans have dignity and should be placed in a special position - only humans have an inherent value. But please note well that this does not imply that we can threat animals as we please. Our privileged position as moral creatures should rather oblige us to avoid any abuse of animals. But I fail to see that harpooning a whale is an act of abuse, while I must admit that I usually avoid bacon these days...
By the way, I am still working on your musical request, but so far this tune is eluding me.
