Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Wed, 04 Jun 1997 09:29:20 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi again Stefan,
You wrote:
>Your logic does not take into account, that animals and humans have
>considerably different mental abilities.
>Assuming that a cat has no understanding of what time and future
>mean (this assumption may be wrong!) it will not be disturbed in its
>life-plan if killed. But a human will be.
But a human infant would not be, right?
>(snip cat fear vs. human fear)
Okay, maybe 'important' would have been a better choice of words in my
'b' than 'sacred:'
>>b) Human life is not more 'sacred' than animal life.
because 'sacred' has religious meanings that I didn't really intend.
In this case, I think your points are really refuting 'b' rather than
invalidating the syllogism.
>There are more reasons, that would allow killing an animal but
>forbidding to kill a human being.
I look forward to seeing what they are.
Am I to assume you are pretty much in agreement with Mr. Singer? We
can talk some more about it after I have read the book.
>See Peter Singer: Practical ethics (got the title now),
>Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1979.
Thanks for this.
Cheers & Prosit,
Martha
|
|
|