Quote:
Originally posted by punkworld
The same goes for retarded people and children. If a child or a retarded person kills someone, should they be given a fair trial by a jury consisting of their underage or retarded peers?
|
Of course not. Normally they're institutionalized. Talking about giving humans and animals equal rights too much just gets too silly.
Quote:
Originally posted by punkworld
But aside from that, this is also a very good argument against humans eating meat, if you also say "Why should only humans refrain from killing other animals?". You just gave the answer, it seems. Humans have the choice, they're intelligent beings with the choice to act morally. That's what sets them apart from other animals.
Now, if you say "That gives them the right to slaughter anything less intelligent", that leads to the conclusion that retards and infants should be eaten as well. Besides, it is not a reason at all - "I can act morally, thefore I shouldn't." doesn't sound that logical, does it.
|
The view that eating meat is somehow immoral is not a very widely held opinion.
I never said "That gives them the right to slaughter anything less intelligent". If I did, and you said "that leads to the conclusion that retards and infants should be eaten as well" I would say that you've already said our intelligence gives us the choice to act morally and is what sets us apart from other animals and most people would find eating children and the retarded totally immoral and that's why there are laws against it.