Comparing a dog to a painting is ridiculous. A 10 year old child would know that the comparison has no basis in reality. A painting is not conscious, does not have a mind. A dog does. The dog feels pain, displays a variety of emotions, has a memory, and has interests and desires. The dog is a living individual; the painting is not.
Pretty weak arguments, considering this is a "PhD"!
A picture does not feel pain, Professor! Think!
Animals, independly of the taxonomy, do!
Beyond, there are plenty of human individuals who do not have the capacity of being a moral agent and yet they are taken care ands have rights.
Small children and mentally disabled people do not have to have a "VOICE" to call for their rights, in order to HAVE their rights. There are others who will be the spokespersons for them.
He addresses the issue of people who are not moral agents. Maybe in part 3. It's pretty unclear and seems to amount to saying that there's no clear cut-off between people who are certainly agents and those who are not. This simply dodges the issue since beyond this 'gray' area there are people who are certainly not agents and are not treated as such - e.g. they are not punished, etc.
Dr. Pin head
minhalinda1963 1 year ago
Comparing a dog to a painting is ridiculous. A 10 year old child would know that the comparison has no basis in reality. A painting is not conscious, does not have a mind. A dog does. The dog feels pain, displays a variety of emotions, has a memory, and has interests and desires. The dog is a living individual; the painting is not.
JoeJC 1 year ago
Rights, moral and ethics do not have anything to do with capacity of thinking, but feeling and suffering!
mthome21 2 years ago
Comment removed
mthome21 2 years ago
Pretty weak arguments, considering this is a "PhD"!
A picture does not feel pain, Professor! Think!
Animals, independly of the taxonomy, do!
Beyond, there are plenty of human individuals who do not have the capacity of being a moral agent and yet they are taken care ands have rights.
Small children and mentally disabled people do not have to have a "VOICE" to call for their rights, in order to HAVE their rights. There are others who will be the spokespersons for them.
mthome21 2 years ago
@mthome21
He addresses the issue of people who are not moral agents. Maybe in part 3. It's pretty unclear and seems to amount to saying that there's no clear cut-off between people who are certainly agents and those who are not. This simply dodges the issue since beyond this 'gray' area there are people who are certainly not agents and are not treated as such - e.g. they are not punished, etc.
pablo4115 1 year ago
Good vid.
johnnycon 2 years ago