What gives something a Right to life?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-19 11:43am

Rye wrote:If the brain is unable to accomplish more than a chicken's, what, exactly are you basing the idea that the mind is significantly more complex?

Are you honestly this goddamned stupid? A 3GHz Intel Pentium-4 CPU is vastly more complex than a four-function calculator's CPU even though it can't do shit without software. Similarly, a human baby's brain is physically much larger and more complex than a chicken's brain, and capable of far more. The fact that it hasn't been programmed yet doesn't mean shit. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if you have a fucking chicken brain yourself. You insist on assuming that the total capability of the processor is limited entirely to what it does without programming.

petesampras · Post by **petesampras** » 2005-10-19 12:38pm

Rye wrote:If the brain is unable to accomplish more than a chicken's, what, exactly are you basing the idea that the mind is significantly more complex? I'm judging the complexity of the mind, the person, on what it can accomplish, if that means eat, shit and not much else, why is it inherently more valuable than a chicken? Because of what will happen, if we leave it alone? The same argument that's flawed when being applied to an abortable foetus?

A babies mind is doing a lot more than eat and shit. It is processing and trying to make sense of the complex data coming into its sense organs. If all a babies mind was doing was focusing on eating and shitting then we would never develop adult intelligence.

It is not the same as 'just' having potential - the actual task of learning can be considered an intelligent act because it envolves complex processing.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-10-19 06:30pm

"autonomy" and "consciousness" and "rationality" (note how the first two are common to all animals and the last one is not even common to all humans). Still others think it's some kind of blessing from God, which is the dumbest of all interpretations.

This is what's really odd about Singer's position, I think. He acts very contradictory to his own statements. At some places in his essays, he states that intelligence/rationality aren't important, but in others he does say that. I don't get why few point this out.

Apparently, he is going by the denominator of "suffering," as the morally important element, not intelligence, which I think is derrivied from Benthem. Although, I don't understand why he does not think a newborn can suffer. Does that even make sense?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-10-19 11:10pm

Indeed, babies begin some sort of learning within the womb, such as the exploration of their environment (hence the kicking). Since this is considered an intelligent act, the baby is almost certainly sentient enough to deserve rights.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-10-20 12:16am

What is it with philosophers that all use different defintions of sentience? I have read about 5 different definitions of it? What the hell is the real definition? One was "suffering ability? another was "self-awareness" etc. I thought it was just awareness of surroundings.