Posted by:
Tevai
(
)
Date: October 22, 2018 09:58PM
Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: ...As such, arguably intelligence of itself
> should not be a determinative factor when assigning respect
> for life, or assigning rights.
I agree on this, and an easy way to explain my position is to cite non-human animals who have what we can recognize as human-like intelligence (octopi, who are one of many possible examples--plus: our primate cousins, dolphins, crows, possibly elephants, etc.)--or, at the other end of the spectrum, human beings whose intelligence is a fraction of what would normally be expected from that person, because of congenital issues, traumatic injury, brain wounds/brain surgery, brain malfunctioning due to inborn or acquired structural issues, or to things like diseases.
We have easily available examples of extremely high-functioning (by our expectations) non-human beings, and extremely low-functioning (by our normal expectations) of humans who were born, or became, markedly limited in their abilities to notice, comprehend, remember, or think.
In human beings, intelligence (or the lack of intelligence) is widely not recognized as a moral/ethical criteria to NOT allow, or TO allow, many kinds of medical experimentation, torture, torturous military interrogation, etc. When these lines are breached (and they often are, and have been throughout history), then we are into very serious moral/ethical territory.
> But, even assuming that, what criteria is there for making
> such moral judgmenhts and assignments, other than simply
> whatever species is dominant.
So far as I am able to see, dominance appears to be the principal principle ;) utilized throughout most of history. Whether the dominance comes from superior weaponry, or group identification (race, caste, religion, political affiliation, social class, etc.--plus species, in some cases), "might makes right" has been, most often, the actual rationale proffered--very often with some kind of "God wants this to happen" explanation.
> And, why is that criteria unacceptable: Why isn't the
> adage 'might make right' an acceptable moral criterion unless
> there is some other "universal" criteria to hang
> one's moral hat on?
This is, of course, the basic question.
My deeply-felt personal question is (and has been for a long time) DOES "might makes right" offer the optimum way for us (either individually, or as groups) to live our lives?
I grew up in a family (maternal side) where the Tulsa Massacre/"Tulsa Race Riot" of 1921 was literally dinner table conversation. (My Mom, born in a Tulsa suburb, was two years old when this happened.)
Were the white people (a group which includes ancestors of mine), who were indeed dominant not only in that area, but in that state and in that area of the country, "right" to murder hundreds of black people and burn down their houses and businesses because, basically, the white people there just kinda felt like it on that early summer day? [There are still, today, efforts ongoing to find the remains of the those murdered in this massacre whose bodies were dumped, have not yet been found, and are, therefore, still uncounted.]
What about Emmett Till in Mississippi, and all of the other victims of lynching in US history? Is it "universally" okay to kill people because you are, in fact, dominant over them?
Enslave them?
Steal their land?
Perform medical experiments (often horrific) and vivisections on them while they are still alive? [CAUTION: Once you read or see the reality of what I am going to reference, you will not be able to then forget it, so please: know yourself, and do not proceed unless you know you can deal with what you find. The first list of Google results, without going any further, will given you enough to know what I am referencing, but the actual records and photos I have seen which are now part of the public record cannot then be "un-seen" or "un-known." The subject is: Unit 731, Japan, WWII. There WERE some American POW's who were caught up in this after they were captured. "We," the United States, were also the "beneficiary" of this research and the research results after the Japanese lost in WWII.]
So: IS dominance over someone, or some other group, or some other species, enough to justify whatever "you" (whoever this is) decide to do to them?
And if dominance fails as a justifiable reason, is SIZE a justifiable reason? (If we are bigger, or better armed, than those we want to dominate, does this give us the RIGHT to dominate?) (After that, we go to the old reliables: gender, race, religion, caste, social class, etc.)
The immediate question is about dominance.
If "you" do absolutely have the ABILITY to dominate another person or animal or being, do you then have the RIGHT to do it?
It is going to be interesting for me to read the responses.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2018 10:03PM by Tevai.