Chris wrote:
>Dear Jamey,
>I would be interested in exploring this line of reasoning. I think it >holds
promise. My guess is that there is no way of assigning the weights
>*objectively*. The best we can do is lay out our own subjective weights >and
be prepared to defend them.
>So what are my weights? I would think something like:
>Chimp 0.1
>Cow 0.01
>Fish 0.0001
>(all against human = 1).
Chris,
Yes, Chris, your numbers for the aforementioned animals are insultingly low,
and no, I think that it is false that the numbers would be completely
subjective. The numbers are based on something very objective; the ability to
suffer. Granted, maybe thier LIVES might not have an objective value. I
think you would agree that when a cruel experiment is performed on a
chimpanzee, that he/she does not suffer only 10% as much. He/she may only
have 10% of the cerebral intellect you call human. It is entirely possible
that the fish that you give .01% ethical weight, again can suffer likely 100%
as well as a human. Ecologically, some fish are literally a dime a dozen, and
intellectually (such as the ability for abstract thought) maybe even .01% is
high for a fish, but as someone who used to have them as companion animals, I
can tell you that some fish are extremely intelligent and some very emotional
and any biology student can tell you that they have an extremely complex
brain, completely able to suffer and feel many of the same emotions that we
feel.
Though we disagree on the numbers, still I agree with you 100% that if people
would only grant the meager moral weights that you did, that this would make
unjust vivisection, factory farming, killing for sport and many other
activities that are accepted casually in our modern day society. I appreciate
your intelligent comments.
Peace for All Beings
Jamey Lee West
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|