Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSflim
So your decision to not treat infants and the mentally handicapped in a cruel manner is one of practicality, rather than any real moral commitment.
So a mother who physically abuses her child is not really doing anything wrong? Her punishment that she would recieve is just the result of technical loop-hole, due to the fact that we must keep practicallity in mind when deciding on the law?
|
She's displaying severly aberrant behaviour. And what do you mean by 'real moral behaviour' -- I wasn't talking about law, I was talking about taboos and morals. A moral system that doesn't take into account practicality is functionally bankrupt.
And, as I mentioned, there are other reasons. They include the intense emotional response of other people, the continuity of the child into the person, etc. I am just claiming that the practical taboo reason is sufficient, not the only reason.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSflim
Why does biological relation to us and/or living on land have a bearing on our responsibility to treat them morally?
|
I was describing a class, I wasn't justifying the class. Many of our close relatives are damn smart cookies.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSflim
Indeed it is. As arbitrary a trait as, dare I say it, sex, religion or skin colour?
|
On some level, yes. Of course, on that level, the valueing life more than non-life is arbitrary, or animals vs non-animals.
Hell, you seem to be implying that pain is bad -- yet another arbitrary choice. Pain is just another sensation -- many people enjoy non-damaging pain (be they people who like to exercise, or BDSM-aficionados, or just people who like being nibbled on).