|
KLRDan -> RE: Apes' Rights (7/2/2008 10:53:08 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach
While I'm not a creationist by any means, nor am I religious in the least bit (especially in the conventional sense of that word) - I do not consider myself to be in any way related to apes, nor have I ever considered myself such. No more than I consider myself related to every Human on the planet. Such relationship - on the off chance that it concievably exists - is so far removed from me biologically as to have utterly no significance. You (generic) wanna consider yourself related to apes? Feel free - but don't expect me to do more than snicker at you about it.
If you want to consider your relationship to an ape, a human, or any other Earth life form insignificant, you're certainly free to do so--but that's no reason to claim the relationship doesn't exist. If you'd like to challenge evolution, please have a logical reason for doing so. You've stated emphatically that you believe you're unrelated to apes, but you've given no reason for that belief. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you just don't want to believe it. Prove me wrong.
In any case, what's relevant here is not whether apes are related to us. It's what level of morality they are capable of.
quote:
ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach
Morally significant Characteristics? Morals are a learned perversion, which change with the context of time and culture. What we, as modern 21st century western society consider to be "moral" would have been considered to be extremely Immoral even in our own earlier history, and there are things which we consider to be grossly immoral which were not only considered morally correct but Preferable to various other socieities. Hell, there are things that we, as western society, consider "immoral" which Current middle eastern society considers that way and vise versa. Show me where they are Ethically similar to humans, and this particular point might hold some weight. Morals? Pppphhhhhttttt.
The point is that apes have been shown to possess a conscience and empathy on par with a human child. If that's true, then it would seem logical to afford them greater protection against captivity and cruelty than we would give most animals. Unless, of course, you think children themselves should get no such protection. Maybe you come from a society where it's considered okay to torture children. If that's the case, I say torture apes to your heart's content. As you yourself so eloquently pointed out (pppphhhhhhttttt), morality is relative. :)
|
|
|
|
