Really? Is it a tragic error to deny a child the right to vote? How about the right to fly an airliner? I don’t see anything wrong with denying certain rights if the person lacks necessary knowledge.

There is no "right" to fly an airliner - you made this same mistake with cars.

Come on now, I asked you that exact same question on the 9th and the reasons for your answer. My answer to my question is “No.” I’ll be happy to give you my reasons why, but I’d like to hear yours first since I asked you first.

And I explained why a temporary impairment is no bar to rights with Raevmo, again. If you have a problem with my answer, go ahead and name it. I have no problem answering.

You, however, are in a different situation. Remember - I'm entirely willing to grant someone rights based on their species alone, or on a knowledge of their natural development (even if said development may be delayed by maturity or impairment). But in defending Singer, you are advancing an argument where if a person even temporarily lacks certain 'properties', you can act as if they do not have them at all, and thus deny them rights across the board. An infant has no rights - it lacks the needed properties.

If you were a biscuit or a rock, you would have none of the properties that make up a human being, or an amoeba for that matter and I’d treat you exactly like a biscuit or a rock. And you wouldn’t know or care.

It wasn't a question of if I were a biscuit or a rock. It's if I thought I was - if I was an impaired human.

And I suppose you think the differences between an amoeba and a human are similarly minimal. The Playstation 3 has a few hundred megabits of information encoded inside it that the Pez dispenser lacks plus several million logic gates plus a video output section plus no Pez dispenser has ever put Sony in danger of bankruptcy.

As you say, there’s still a gulf between apes and humans – but we differ more in degree than in kind. Physically, we’re almost identical – same parts, different proportions. The biggest difference is that our brains are about twice as large, which lets us handle about 150 personal relationships instead of 10-15 for an ape, we are generally smarter, which is also probably due to the larger brain and we have language which opens up a whole new world of thought that is largely denied to apes.

See, I can turn right around and tell you the difference between the Pez Dispenser and the PS3 is 'more degree than kind'. The PS3 has more information? Well, the PS3 has some - all we're talking about is amount. Oh, the PS3 is capable of communication? So is the Pez Dispenser - it clearly has trademark information stamped on it. Text is communication, it differs only in degree, not in kind.

It's like the old bit about how both frogs and birds can fly - birds can just stay in the air longer. A difference of the 'degree' between humans and ape is so vast that it's the stuff of kind. You can try and fast talk your way past that, but it inevitably ends up looking like the 'Pez v PS3' or any number of degree arguments.

Incidentally - I said from the start that this legal move had little to do with apes. It's anecdotal, but I really find it interesting that the argument quickly moved from 'apes need protections' to 'well, they have to be protections that are human rights, apes need to be recognized as persons and humans need to sometimes be recognized as not persons, it's not enough just to protect the apes'.

See the “Defending Your Existence” thread for my thoughts on Peter Singer and the rather disgusting Harriet Johnson, who is apparently willfully ignorant and damn the damage she does to innocent people because of her ignorance.

Damage she does to innocent people? Says the defender of Singer? Ahh, black comedy.

Nullasalas: “Now it's my turn to ask you - is it okay to deny you your rights when you're sleeping?”
Come on now, I asked you that exact same question on the 9th and the reasons for your answer. My answer to my question is “No.” I’ll be happy to give you my reasons why, but I’d like to hear yours first since I asked you first.

Me: “I hope you're not going to deny you're an animal because I would hate to see you going through life as a biscuit or a rock.”
Nullasalus: “Why would that concern you? It would merely mean that I lack some of the properties that make up a human being, and apparently you'd be able to treat me without rights in response. It's not as if, according to what you're outlining here, there's a "person" here if I'm so impaired.”

If you were a biscuit or a rock, you would have none of the properties that make up a human being, or an amoeba for that matter and I’d treat you exactly like a biscuit or a rock. And you wouldn’t know or care.

Nullasalus: “And the only difference between a Pez dispenser and a Playstation 3 is minimal. They're both largely made of plastic. They're arranged differently and the PS3 has some metal in it, and that's about it.”

And I suppose you think the differences between an amoeba and a human are similarly minimal. The Playstation 3 has a few hundred megabits of information encoded inside it that the Pez dispenser lacks plus several million logic gates plus a video output section plus no Pez dispenser has ever put Sony in danger of bankruptcy.

As you say, there’s still a gulf between apes and humans – but we differ more in degree than in kind. Physically, we’re almost identical – same parts, different proportions. The biggest difference is that our brains are about twice as large, which lets us handle about 150 personal relationships instead of 10-15 for an ape, we are generally smarter, which is also probably due to the larger brain and we have language which opens up a whole new world of thought that is largely denied to apes.

See the “Defending Your Existence” thread for my thoughts on Peter Singer and the rather disgusting Harriet Johnson, who is apparently willfully ignorant and damn the damage she does to innocent people because of her ignorance.

Isn't Singer the one who suggests parents should have a year to decide if they really want their baby, and if not, can kill it?

Hi Joy,

Yes. That's my recollection of his insane position. That says everything you need to know about the man.

She alludes to it with the mixed race "unadoptable" babies, but refuses to acknowledge forcefully that eugenics right here in the US did in fact get applied to orphans - and not just the colorful ones. It's easy for people to accept arguments that those who must rely on other people in order to live should not live. That's the whole of Singer's argument for infanticide. All human infants are dependent. They stay dependent for the better part of two decades.

Johnson's conclusion is weirdly weak, providing exactly zero effective counterpoint to Singer's narcissistic 'morality'…

As a shield from the terrible purity of Singer's vision, I'll look to the corruption that comes from interconnectedness. To justify my hopes that Singer's theoretical world — and its entirely logical extensions — won't become real, I'll invoke the muck and mess and undeniable reality of disabled lives well lived. That's the best I can do.

Perhaps it's a side effect of atheism that even a notable disability rights advocate who is herself disabled can't manage a real argument to the intrinsic value of human life against a 'rationalist morality' in which value doesn't exist. I get the uneasy feeling that in a pinch, Johnson might concede that her "well lived" life is a sham because where there is no value there can be no rights.

You mean humans have a "soul" and (other) animals don't, correct?

Are you honestly telling me you're unable to think of what could constitute a vast gulf between apes and humans without reference to theological soul? Nothing in the intellect, the natural language and thought capabilities, the culture, the breadth and depth of abstract concept use, the development, the natural potential - none of this stands out to you?

So - no, incorrect. I don't need to set foot in theology (where the specifics of the soul is the subject of debate, rather than the stuff of utter defined certainty, at least in my faith) to make this observation. Theology certainly lends some justification to my desire to see apes (and other animals as well) treated with kindness and consideration, though, if you're really curious.

"Are we "worse off"? I don't think so. Not in any meaningful sense. There are too many variables. For those of us with congenital conditions, disability shapes all we are. Those disabled later in life adapt. We take constraints that no one would choose and build rich and satisfying lives within them. We enjoy pleasures other people enjoy, and pleasures peculiarly our own. We have something the world needs."

I agree with her that disabled persons contribute something the world needs desperately, something that makes humans unique, something that involves the human heart, something I hope we never lose.

In the end, though, I was left empty. Both Singer and Johnson end up with mortal wounds to their logic - Singer, forced to concede that his raw utilitarianism justifies racism; and Johnson, that there is no rational reason to believe that she should not have been exterminated. Singer falls back on his prejudice, and Johnson falls back on some kind of Pollyannaish "faith in humanity".

Really, the gulf is wider than that by far. You can play the 'degree' game if you like, but it's not as if we only recently figured out that apes have a lot of physical similarities with humans. There's still a tremendous gulf between the two, and barring tinkering by humanity, always will be.

You mean humans have a "soul" and (other) animals don't, correct?

The tragic view comes closest to describing how I now look at Peter Singer. He is a man of unusual gifts, reaching for the heights. He writes that he is trying to create a system of ethics derived from fact and reason, that largely throws off the perspectives of religion, place, family, tribe, community and maybe even species — to "take the point of view of the universe." His is a grand, heroic undertaking.

But like the protagonist in a classical drama, Singer has his flaw. It is his unexamined assumption that disabled people are inherently "worse off," that we ''suffer," that we have lesser "prospects of a happy life." Because of this all-too-common prejudice, and his rare courage in taking it to its logical conclusion, catastrophe looms. Here in the midpoint of the play, I can't look at him without fellow-feeling.