Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!usl!jla From: jla@usl.UUCP (Joseph L Arceneaux) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: animal vs human rights, morality Message-ID: <232@usl.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Feb-85 00:20:30 EST Article-I.D.: usl.232 Posted: Sun Feb 3 00:20:30 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jan-85 07:33:02 EST Organization: USL, Lafayette, LA Lines: 50 As this addresses many issues mentioned in net.abortion, I am also posting this there. However, I believe this truly belongs under net.philosophy. It seems to me that questions such as abortion and animal rights can easily be settled once a moral framework is defined. Once a 'moral meterstick' is determined, such issues need merely be measured against them. Of course the hard part is agreeing on such a structure. The only arguable difference between our species and the other animals on the planet is that of intelligence, but that is a difference of degree, not kind. (And I believe the difference in degree to be relatively small.) Hence, the ONLY basis for assigning greater moral value to humans is quantity of intelli- gence. If we should place such a premium on that trait known as intelligence that we give moral superiority to our species over the others on our planet, then we must also give such MORAL superiority to those of our species who are most in- telligent. Such an attitude, implemented into the legal system, would no doubt be realized by such policies as denying less intelligent people the right to procreate, by creating [many more] sperm banks to propogate the 'good' humans, etc., etc. a la '1984.' Also, one day computers may become more 'intelligent' than ourselves. Will we then be willing to invest them with moral superiority over us? Finally, suppose that we use our intelligence to destroy ourselves and most of our world. I think that in that event we would be the least moral of the Earth's inhabitants. So, as you can see, I don't at all believe that our intelligence inherrently gives us a moral edge over the other creatures of the earth. what moral back- ground should be used, but I may have said enough for one time. Also, I'd like to get some feed back on this initial premise. It's just not clear at all to me that our species is inherrently better than any other. All such ideas are, I feel, just a form of prejudice resulting from our egocentricity. So with reference to Andrew Koenig's (hope I got that right) "simple question," I cer- tainly cannot see the difference (morally) between killing fetus' and killing [non-human] animals. -- Joseph Arceneaux USL Computer Science Department {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla