Posts by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
(DIR) Post #AUJ3ifBU5ScrKXA360 by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-04T11:06:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue Don't humans with disable mental capacities have rights ?
(DIR) Post #AUJRzC06F4SOdqFbV2 by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-04T15:38:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue https://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2017/november/11012017Buckner-Animal-Cognition.phpAlso, why is it a good criteria to give rights ? Since we talk about the rights of living or to not be killed. Sentience would be a more pertinant criteria.
(DIR) Post #AUJTKShVRkLeTIG9p2 by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-04T15:53:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue because with sentience come the experience of life therefore robing someone of it, is a right violation. I don't think there is a moral problem to kill someone in a vegetable state if there's no chance he'll wake up. There's attachment issue howerever. I'm not sure about the sentience of people in coma or lice. But all the animals we eat are sentient for sure.
(DIR) Post #AUJmGpFLZtqUMo4H8C by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-04T19:26:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue no because plants are not sentient. Animals killing each others is wrong but may be permissible for survival, depends of your moral framework. Temporary state is not the same because you have to take account the futur possibilities.
(DIR) Post #AUKZpnZOeW0S2tc9OC by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-05T04:41:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. That's a reaction not a proof of sentience. From your link : “However, it should not be interpreted as showing that plants are actively communicating by making sounds,” Karban added.2. Because they can't grab the concept of rights. That's the difference between moral agent and patient.
(DIR) Post #AUNcjp6hz6EL1cUXj6 by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-06T15:58:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. Since we can't starve ourself we have to choose the least harm and eating plants is killing less than feeding an animal and eating him or her.2. Why do they need to? As long as they value their lives and have interest in living, we can give them rights that protect their lives.
(DIR) Post #AUOkW3ATu4RZN59xi4 by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-07T05:00:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. We have rights to live too, when 2 rights of beings conflicts you have to choose : starving yourself or violate right of others for your survival. It's the case of still wrong but permissible, seen before.2. Yes but humans cares because they are moral agents, as seen before it's the difference with moral patient who can have rights without understand it.
(DIR) Post #AUPgYZ6sWxv5mCS61A by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-07T15:50:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. Permissible in certains situations like selfdefense, survival. We already apply this to humans.2. They don't need to be interested, as long as they have an interest to live. Again we apply this to humans who are not in capacity to understand rights concept.
(DIR) Post #AUQpl8fK0jsuMZXbjU by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T05:08:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. Punching is violating rights in my opinion but you can take killing in selfdefense if you want.2. Because when humans interfere with this interest it become a moral question for humans. I was not talking about babies. I'm sure there are humans without the capacity to understand the concept of rights and will never be able to but we still grant them some basic rights.
(DIR) Post #AURLd9itOMozrMRrrk by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T11:05:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1 You are violating my rights to physical integrity.2. Not people in coma. The less cognitive ability humans have a right to not be killed.
(DIR) Post #AURNpoGUgRc6yvKKRs by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T11:30:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1 I disagree with this but I understand your logic. In my view and in a hypothetical where plants are sentient, I'll choose to not starve but killing the less possible.2. I think there are people who can't. But for the argument what's your position in a hypothetical where humans have the same level of rational thought of animals. Do you grant them rights ? And if yes why? And why not animals ?
(DIR) Post #AURPpuissBxmv1mdtY by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T11:52:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. The punishment depends on the social agreement of society and therefor law. I'm saying that it is imoral but justify by the situation.2.So why not treat animals as if they have some rights if you do it with humans?
(DIR) Post #AURalRccE9m106vHeq by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T13:54:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. It's not arbitrarily, the majority is agreed. Law doesn't equal morality but it's an indicator of the moral of the majority. Criminal is someone who break the law. But you can act immoraly regardless of the society. However it is the society who apply the punishment in accordance to the law.2.So hurting a dog is wrong only if it's not you're property? What about the suffering of the dog ?
(DIR) Post #AURggzs83ePhVFRRbc by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T15:01:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue 1. Yeah I was just explaining my intake of morale and law.2. Why you wouldn't hurt a dog ?
(DIR) Post #AURjH6MpaOpNys97XE by edwardkentish@mastodon.top
2023-04-08T15:30:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sue why you would feel bad? Yeah, why do they feel good treating animals nicely? What about the animals that they make feel good?