In my opinion time is imperative for all mortal beings, it brings about reference points, structure, etc.

I do agree that if in a hypothetical scenario humans were not mortal time would not be a talking point.

I don't really understand how the trolley problem applies, could you explain? However your idea about miserable lives does play an important part in the anti-natalists' asymmetry argument (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetry_(population_ethics)).

Omgosh, I just realized you're not the other commenter. Your little icons have the same color and I didn't register further than that. Please forgive my snark!

> Ethics has nothing to do with cognitive ability

I don't fully disagree with you, but it is related - eg vegans who eat bivalves because their lack of a nervous system means they don't feel pain.

We do make distinction in how "advanced" an organism is.

Because you have to define it all from scratch (legally). Personhood has a lot of laws built around it as is.

[I'm agreeing with you - I'm saying OP to you basically thought they GOTCHA! but really it was a mask off moment for themselves]

How to prove anything

This is a variant of the "liar's sentence". Consider the sentence

S = "This sentence is false or grass is blue"

If S is false, then it must be true, resulting in a contradiction. If S is true, then the statement before the "or" is false, so "grass is blue" must be true. Thus we have proved grass is blue.

Obviously this a paradox stemming from self-referentiality, and we can use it to "prove" anything. But the important thing to note is that we didn't end up with a purely logical contradiction, just that grass is blue. It's only because we know this is wrong that we can recognise the paradox.

What's the upshot of this? While people are aware of self-referential statements creating paradoxes, when practicing philosophy people normally don't worry about them because they think if they crop up they'll be able to spot them because they cause a contradiction. But what I've shown is that paradoxes don't have to create logical contradictions. So whenever you see arguments which utilise self-referential statements, be aware! There could be some funny business afoot.

(i'm finally caving and posting this here because it wasn't allowed as a post. I've shortened it considerably.)

I understand that they have been declared as such...

Corporations and Government should both serve persons, making them people is stupid.

By making a corporation the same as a person you're essentially saying they have the right to exist, that we must buy their shit or they'll die... but that's how capitalism works.

If your product isn't useful you don't get a business.

Exactly.

To draw a circle that includes all of the humans we would like to include as persons (children, elderly, average citizens, people with varying degrees of mental disabilities), it becomes unavoidable to include many animals in that same circle.

>Because those cognitive abilities are what determine ethical duties owed to that elephant...It must be emotional and intellectual capacity that creates moral weight.

No they don't. Ethics has nothing to do with cognitive ability. Moral value is a property of systems, not individuals, and the ethical significance of individuals comes from their role in maintaining this systemic value. Ethical significance has to do with relationships, not experiences. And all living things have these relationships, every living thing has ancestors, every living thing reproduces, every living thing eats, and every living thing is eaten.

Humans or other animals are not any more significant in this regard than other organisms.

There are plenty of other alternatives to suffering-based morality that are not divine command theory.

Most people would point to the great 'achievements' of the human race in fields such as philosophy, architecture, astrophysics, aeronautics etc.

...But then you have to wonder what justifies the supposed superiority of the 98% of humans that have made no such great achievements.

Corporations in the US, believe it or not, are persons. Though human foetuses and cetaceans, for example, are not. Really its so corporations can make claims, and have claims made against them

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Humans aren't specially significant.

>If they’re not yours, why defend them?

Because the truth matters. I do not like Republicans, but I criticize them on what they're actually doing.

You have just outlined the conundrum that many philosophies and religions try to justify or explain. A buddhist may say harming a flea and a dog are equal because we are all connected, whereas some Christian faiths delineate between humans and “lesser animals”.

It’s also why it’s not so simple to define “personhood”, as the post indicates.

Those are the attributes given to God by those who believe in God. It’s the god of the Christians as defined by the Bible.

Same to you as well. Have a blessed day.

If they’re not yours, why defend them? This isn’t just some case of misunderstanding or disagreement on policy, like whether we should tax cigarettes or have more carpool lanes.

This is a mainstream political party operating under the “conservatism” umbrella openly calling to have children molested as they make repeated, organized efforts to marginalize minorities and suppress dissent while platforming known white supremacists and far-right leaders.

Oh, look at that, you've argued yourself into a corner for all the world to see, but you can't deal, so you accuse me of bad faith.

C'est la vie. Better luck next time!

I believe it can be dangerous to base treatment of an organism on its cognitive ability alone. Say if I had greater cognitive ability than another human to the extent that the difference between me and that human was greater than the difference of that human and a flea then what justification could be given for me to not treat them as they would treat a flea? I believe my treatment of other organisms should be determined by that organism’s capacity to suffer from whatever action I am taking against it and whether that action is necessary. It’s intelligence or emotional depth shouldn’t matter ethically in my opinion. It is my belief that because humans have a tendency to treat other people and animals that are more similar to them better we also tend to frame that justification through a similar lens which is the incorrect justification.

I agree with 99% of what you said. It’s just at the last part my justification would be if the flea is capable of experiencing suffering equal to the dog is what would give me moral considerations for its treatment.

"How in the world do you get that from anything I said?"

I should have simply posted this in response to every single one of your replies to me. You do not ask questions in good faith. Okay, that is fine. You don't have to ask questions in good faith. If this is the case we don't have to speak to each other.

>you are denigrating the Human.

How in the world do you get that from anything I said?

>Accusations of -Ism's (and the assignment of any kind of moral weight to such accusations) is the last refuge for the incompetent.

So now you just don't think racism exists?

You are not elevating the non-human, you are denigrating the Human. Feigning outrage is cliché and banal. You asked a question and I answered. You are upset because I did not answer in the way you liked. Accusations of -Ism's (and the assignment of any kind of moral weight to such accusations) is the last refuge for the incompetent.

I'm taking you by your own words. You may change your stance at any time!

Huh?

Seeking to elevate the status of non-humans means I don't like humans and can't dislike racists?

What the what now?