Equality & Argument From Marginal Cases: inconsistencies

[Gaspard]

So basically animals could be rendered in range of intellect/cognitive ability insufficient qualify for rights that human have. For an example I doubt that even most vegans would advocate for same responsibilities and rights for animals that human have, ie being hold responsible for their actions in court in equal manner to humans, right to a legal defender, right to own property etc.

No vegan advocates so animals can have driver's license or children might own guns. This thread is mostly about negative rights : basically the right not to be assaulted., freedom from slavery and etc.

 

[Max Caulfield]

No vegan advocates so animals can have driver's license or children might own guns. This thread is mostly about negative rights : basically the right not to be assaulted., freedom from slavery and etc.

That's kinda missing point, it was simply example made to demonstrate of that just because humans have rights doesn't mean said rights should be applied non-human rights. In fact animals aren't even subject of legal consequences of infringing on such rights, after all a dog won't be trialed for attacking other dog and infringing on their rights, pretty much same for animals infringing on rights of humans. Animals lack responsibility of not infringing on rights of other be it humans or other animals and even capability/potential to get to that point they would be able to develop such responsibility. Not that last type of argument it's necessarily efficient argument against certain animal rights because same is true regarding certain humans such as people diagnosed with ASPD.

 

[Gaspard]

Not that last type of argument it's necessarily efficient argument against certain animal rights because same is true regarding certain humans such as people diagnosed with ASPD.

That's exactly the subjet of this thread.

 

[Max Caulfield]

That's exactly the subjet of this thread.

Well, not quite. Topic is concerned with notion of equality used as argument against animal rights and argument from marginal cases refuting it as marginal cases have still human rights. While I don't think it necessarily does as I've demonstrated it there are additional reasons exclusive only to humans to grant such humans rights to such outliers. At best it would prove equality of outliers in terms of cognitive ability to animals not entire category of humans that even on average are significantly superior in terms of cognitive abilities than animals. It would be kind of like saying that students of the school where 99 % of student pass exams is equal to school with 0 % of students of passing exams because there is 1 % that didn't pass the exam just like all in other school.

 

[Gaspard]

Well, not quite.

I misunderstood you then.

It would be kind of like saying that students of the school where 99 % of student pass exams is equal to school with 0 % of students of passing exams because there is 1 % that didn't pass the exam just like all in other school.

Well I'm thinking of it from a universal perspective (which paradoxically focuses on each individual as you need every part to make the whole).

 

[Max Caulfield]

I misunderstood you then.

Well I'm thinking of it from a universal perspective (which paradoxically focuses on each individual as you need every part to make the whole).

Not necessarily, one could make a general rule based on a pattern concerning certain group in order to function effectively. For an example in law concept of evidence relies on inductive reasoning as you can't ever really proof of guilt in absolute sense. Even if I had video evidence for an example person threatening someone, there could be always a chance of some alternative explanation, unlikely as it would be., such that we were merely acting upon role. It could be in case, simply unlikely to be true and as such more probable would be they simply threatened that person and it would be used as an strong evidence of threatening of someone in court .

So accounting for every unit in policy/decision on specific basis making isn't always necessary as doing so would be inefficient, not to mention sometimes it's even impossible. Then as I've mentioned there are also other basis for including such outliers of the group into policy.

 

[Gaspard]

so the human rights should

Not necessarily, one could make a general rule based on a pattern concerning certain group in order to function effectively.

"Generality" and "universality" are not the same. As you saw in my first post my approach is as rigorous as possible. It tends to mathematical reasoning. It’s more about deontology and abstract reasoning than politics and statistics.

The declaration of human rights states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

There are good reason why they didn't write: "Most human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
This would be a bit Orwellian.

 

[Max Caulfield]

so the human rights should

"Generality" and "universality" are not the same. As you saw in my first post my approach is as rigorous as possible. It tends to mathematical reasoning. It’s more about deontology and abstract reasoning than politics and statistics.

The declaration of human rights states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

There are good reason why they didn't write: "Most human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
This would be a bit Orwellian.

I know they they aren't the same, I simply stated that universality is not necessary to apply into the system.

That really depends on what exactly what is meant by equal in dignity and rights but next part of this article pretty much alludes to sense of brotherhood due to ability to reason and possessing conscience as reason of extending it to all . Not directly stated but I'm trying to make a sense out of it based on what is stated. This doesn't exactly go into reasoning as why conscience or ability to reason should extend to sense of brotherhood toward humans only or even humans at all but I thought of some of them in my previous post.

 

[Gaspard]

That really depends on what exactly what is meant by equal in dignity and rights but next part of this article pretty much alludes to sense of brotherhood due to ability to reason and possessing conscience as reason of extending it to all .

Yea, from a vegan perspectiven there are some differences here. Obviously Great apes (surch as us) are the best at reasonning... (Wolves are better that us with associative memory.)
I know, some lawyer are starting to write some universal animal rights. I'm not too much into it but it must be very interesting. I doubt the UN will endorse ant vegan declaration soon...

I know they they aren't the same, I simply stated that universality is not necessary to apply into the system.

It depends on the context. For example in survival situations we discriminate more.

But I think it is good to have some universal perspective. Some people are p*ssed about that because they defend "moral relativism". Well obviously morality has some degree of relativism. But I don't think you can justify rape, torture or slavery on the basis of cultural diversity.