(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

kahrohseh
2007-01-11 06:44 am UTC (link)

Hoo... Let me be clear, I have total respect for you and this line of questioning, it's all very valid, but I'm starting to wish I'd kept strictly to the macros and teh funneh.

But in answer to the questions you pose, well, I can't claim to have any solidified theory on that. If I were to fall back on what I remember from formal Ethics class, I'd say the dividing line comes down to potentiality: an animal is never going to grow up into something more cognitively advanced, whereas a human child will, barring a few exceptions. Parents take formulative steps with their children on an assumption they are preparing them for some outward-expanding future, whereas pet owners seem to be of a psychology to do things that will ensure their pet, at best, something consistent, uneventful and peaceful.

But then, people use the same potentiality argument against abortion and the mentally disabled, so, I just... aiyaiiigh. ><; I'd still put it down to the fact that an animal has no full comprehension and never will, whereas a child someday will, and that's what bears the most weight.

Or, if all this is unstable, it may just come down to the fact that humans, as humans, are more accountable to fellow humans than to animals. But if humans develop something called humanity and the property of being humane, then out of at least our reputation among fellow humans we should apply the basic fundamentals of civility to our treatment of other species.

Or we just all go out for ice cream.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kahrohseh 2007-01-11 06:49 am UTC (link)
	*Formative, not formulative. See? I did need that ice cream. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -