Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pur-phy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:pur-phy!act
From: act@pur-phy.UUCP (Tselis)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: animal vs human rights, morality
Message-ID: <1616@pur-phy.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-Jan-85 01:06:26 EST
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.1616
Posted: Thu Jan 31 01:06:26 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 00:19:46 EST
References: <232@usl.UUCP> <694@bunker.UUCP>
Reply-To: act@pur-phy.UUCP (Tselis)
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., IN
Lines: 33
Summary: 

In article <694@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>
>I disagree; I can certainly argue for the arguability of other differences.
>E.g., only humans seem to be interested in moral questions.
>
Not all humans are interested in moral questions, or are even
cognizant of them.  What about people who are so hopelessly retarded
that they have no conception of "morality"?  They're just as human as
the next person, who may have an IQ of 150, as far as I'm concerned.

>....As I have tried to point out before, if intelligence is
>the criterion for humanity or rights, then the time will come when
>someone has to decide which humans have the required level of intelligence.
>
The same may be said about the required level of "moral awareness".  The
yardstick of "moral awareness" is just as good (or as bad) as that of
intelligence.  Indeed, the two may be so inextricably intertwined that
any distinction between them is meaningless.  Wherever morals may come
from (a knotty question in itself), a certain degree of intelligence is
required to be aware of them and their place in our lives.
>
>If it is true, as I suggested above, that only humans ask questions
>of the form, "Is action X moral?", then it would not really make
>sense to say that our species is better than any other, in the
>sense of moral superiority.  The fact that we seem to have a sense
>of morality, even if it leads each of us to different conclusions,
>means that we can be either good or bad, but a mouse (for example)
>is neither good nor bad, it's just a mouse.
>
Many humans do not ask such questions.  Some sociopaths, for instance,
seem to have no comprehension that their actions are wrong, or evil,
so do they get struck from the roster of humans?  Or am I misunderstanding
the whole point here?