ydoaPs

hediagfcb?

I think the concept of personhood is well indicated by the following passages from Rethinking Life and Death by Peter Singer. Many people react with scepticism to such descriptions of a nonhuman animal, but the abilities of the gorilla Koko described here are broadly similar to those reported quite independently by observers of other great apes, including chimpanzees and orang-utans. On the evidence presented, there seems little doubt that Koko is 'a thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places'. So, it would seem, are many other great apes, and not only those who have learnt a human language. After spending most of ther life observing free-living chimpanzees in the Gombe region of Tanzania, Jane Goodall wrote: There are other persons on this planet. The evidence for personhood is at present most conclusive for the great apes, but whales, dolphins, elephants, monkeys, dogs, pigs, and other animals may eventually also be shown to be aware of their own existence over time and capable of reasoning. Then they too will have to be considered as persons. But what difference does it make, whether a nonhuman animal is a person or not? In one respect, it makes little difference,. Whether or not dogs and pigs are persons, they can certainly feel pain and suffer in a variety of ways, and our concern for their suffering should not depend on how rational and self-aware they might be. All the same, the term 'person' is no mere descriptive label. It carries with it a certain moral standing. Just as, in law, the fact that a corporation can be a person means that a corporation can sue and be sued, so too, once we recognise a nonhuman animal as a person, we will soon begin to to attribute basic rights to that animal. Our isolation is over. Science has helped us to understand our evolutionary history, as well as our own nature and the nature of other animals. Freed from the constraints of religious conformity, we now have a new vision of who we are, to whom we are related, the limited nature of the differences between us and other species, and the more or less accidental manner in which the boundary between 'us' and 'them' has been formed. Adopting this new vision will change forever the way in which we make ethical decisions about beings who are alive and belong to our species, but lack the capacities that some members of other species possess. Why should we treat the life of an anecephalic human child as sacrosanct, and feel free to kill healthy baboons in order to take their organs? Why should we lock chimpanzees in laboratory cages and infect then with fatal human diseases, if we abhor the idea of experiments conducted with intellectually disabled human beings whose mental level is similar to that of the cimpanzees? The new vision leaves no room for the traditional answer to these questions, that we human beings are special creation, infinitely more precious, in virtue of our humanity alone, than all other living things. In the light of our new understanding of our place in the universe, we shall have to abandon that traditional answer, and revise the boundaries of our ethics. One casualty of that revision will be any ethic based on the idea that what really matters about beings is whether they are human. This will have dramatic effects, not only on our relations with nonhuman animals, but on the entire traditional sanctity of life ethic. For once we remove the assumption that an animal must be human in order to have some kind of right to life, then we will have to start looking at the characteristics and capacities that an animal must possess in order to have that right. When we do that, however, we will not be able to avoid noticing that, if we set the standard anywhere above the bare possession of life itself, some human beings will fail to meet it. Then it will become very difficult to continue to maintain that these humans have a right to life, while simultaneously denying the same right to animals with equal or superior characteristics and capacities.

We're not supposed to give homework answers. We can help them do it themselves, but we are not to do their homework for them. You can give equations and hints, but not answers.

Wow....can you repost in English?

Good thing lucaspa knows a true Scottsman when he sees one.

Time is just another dimension like the three spatial ones. Hoo-ya General Relativity!

I'm a MM3 now.......woo hoo.....going on leave in the morning. I'm technically on leave now, but my flight doesn't leave until tomorrow.

Star Trek. Duh!

Why couldn't an extraterrestrial be classified as an animal? Haven't you seen Star Trek? All intelligent life in the galaxy is descendant from one species.

A sentient extraterrestrial being(preferably one which is all-around better than humans).

Pi day...YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hoo Ya someone didn't encrypt their wireless internet.

That has a nice ring to it.

My roommate was watching a conspiracy theory movie the other day and I thought of something. If the plane didn't really hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers? The movie didn't explain that. Do any of the conspiracy theorists have an explanation?

I am standing on the Earth which is stationary relative to me. I'm not moving, so neither is the Earth. I didn't say anything about geocentricism.

The Earth. I doubt there is anything else, though.

Or maybe it was because it couldn't grow in any other direction due to the space constraints imposed by the walls of the maze.

I'm about to take my last load of stuff and that includes my laptop, so I'm not going to be on for a while.

It means I'm going to become a Petty Officer. Basically, I get a raise and more responsibility. I go from E-3 to E-4. I took my comprehensive exam today and got a 3.52 on a 4.0 scale. My overall "A" school grade was 3.42.

Friday I get my crow, and I go on leave. I will probably be incommunicado until then, though.

We can't assume that. What if it would feel special? For example, many humans search for a purpose for their life. These hybrids would actually have one. What stops them from appreciating being the beginning of something new? I never said I advocated it. I actually don't see a need, although I'm sure we could learn a lot about genetics from it. I'm just saying I don't see anything morally wrong with it. If I knew you would have posted this, I would have not packed up my copy of Practical Ethics yet. There is a great section in there(IIRC, it is called An Unusual Institution) which I'd be happy to type out. It is a great example of what I am talking about. Unfortunately, I've already moved it. Once I finish, in an hour or so, I will be incommunicado for a while as I have to wait for comcast to come to base and I have to order the internet for my new room, wait for them to send the equipment, etc.

Yet that doesn't stop us from experimenting on chimps... What would cause the suffering? Who is saying it has to be done inhumanely? I'm not sure why you think it would be alone, either. We would learn more if we had more than one, anyway. What if we were to breed a few dozen and have them raised almost as though they were human children? IIRC, this was done with chimps with great results. Where would the suffering come in there?

No, it isn't. You're "reasons" are all based on the false idea that species membership is morally relevant. I might be misunderstanding, but from what I gather, your objections are not about morality, they are about the eww factor. If I am really just misunderstanding you, please rephrase your argument. Chimps demonstrate the ability to use sign language. Hell, they even have basic moral codes. They are plenty sentient in and of themselves. Again, being human has no moral importance.

When did species membership become a moral characteristic? I guess I missed the memo.

Just like breeding fruitflies, bacteria, and plants are more than abominations because they are creating something for the sole reason of just wanting to study it. This one is almost a good question. Would it have the same mental capabilities as us? How would we know until the breeding? What level of intelligence is required before breeding is wrong? Is breeding dogs or cats wrong? How is that different from breeding horses? Don't we lock chimps in cages? What about capturing dolphins solely for our amusement? Where is the line? How would we measure such a line? Indeed