8 Bit Philosophy: Do Animals Deserve Human Rights (Pokemon + Speciesism)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Do Animals Deserve Human Rights (Pokemon + Speciesism)

Press Start for "Should Animals Have Human Rights?" by 8-Bit Philosophy, where classic video games introduce famous thinkers, problems, and concepts with quotes, teachings, and more.

Watch Video

I would eat Pikachu-bacon in a heartbeat.

Johnny Novgorod:
I would eat Pikachu-bacon in a heartbeat.

With a side of DItto Fries. Though the point becomes more complicated. After all if you have to be all moral about animals one has to do the same for plants. Plants do exhibit pain response. which kinda a sucks for vegans and vegitarians. I mean that makes them technically more evil than meat eaters. At least the COw had the ability to put up a fight (and given how many people are fatally injured by cows each year). BUt a Cabbage had no chance.

Worse. My steak was dead when I through it on the grill. A Carrot, once plucked can sprout again if placed under the right conditions. Meaning a carrot in your crisper is still allive. Which means when you through your carrot in the juicer to make you carrot juice... IT was still alive...

MonsterCrit:

Johnny Novgorod:
I would eat Pikachu-bacon in a heartbeat.

With a side of DItto Fries. Though the point becomes more complicated. After all if you have to be all moral about animals one has to do the same for plants. Plants do exhibit pain response. which kinda a sucks for vegans and vegitarians. I mean that makes them technically more evil than meat eaters. At least the COw had the ability to put up a fight (and given how many people are fatally injured by cows each year). BUt a Cabbage had no chance.

Worse. My steak was dead when I through it on the grill. A Carrot, once plucked can sprout again if placed under the right conditions. Meaning a carrot in your crisper is still allive. Which means when you through your carrot in the juicer to make you carrot juice... IT was still alive...

Exactly. Everything we can consume for nourishment has DNA and is therefore a living thing. Just because it doesn't have a mouth and can't scream in agony doesn't mean it's not suffering. Also, I wonder what your typical vegan's stance on killing bugs.

Doom972:

Exactly. Everything we can consume for nourishment has DNA and is therefore a living thing. Just because it doesn't have a mouth and can't scream in agony doesn't mean it's not suffering. Also, I wonder what your typical vegan's stance on killing bugs.

Actually there are now more than a few food products that have nothing natural in them...

I'm surprised...well, actually I'm NOT surprised that 8-Bit Philosophy didn't mention some of Singer's other theories and beliefs -- like how parents should have the right to kill their handicapped children after they've been born or that it's okay for people to have sex with animals so long as they can somehow "prove" they're not hurting the animal by doing so. Peter Singer is a reprehensible human being, and no one should take this sick bastard seriously.

MonsterCrit:

Doom972:

Exactly. Everything we can consume for nourishment has DNA and is therefore a living thing. Just because it doesn't have a mouth and can't scream in agony doesn't mean it's not suffering. Also, I wonder what your typical vegan's stance on killing bugs.

Actually there are now more than a few food products that have nothing natural in them...

Yes, but if you subsist only on these, you'll be missing vital nutrients which will lead to an early death.

LysanderNemoinis:
I'm surprised...well, actually I'm NOT surprised that 8-Bit Philosophy didn't mention some of Singer's other theories and beliefs -- like how parents should have the right to kill their handicapped children after they've been born or that it's okay for people to have sex with animals so long as they can somehow "prove" they're not hurting the animal by doing so. Peter Singer is a reprehensible human being, and no one should take this sick bastard seriously.

Isn't that a bit of an ad hominem? Just because a person says something mad, it doesn't mean that they are completely incapable of providing something useful :P

OP: Eh I don't know. I don't like pork cause of the taste and smell, so I have practically migrated over to beef and chicken as meat, as well as a good range of fish.

I don't know, I like the taste of good steak a bit too much to give it up, though it's entirely possible for me to do.

I derive my value of human beings from religious views that every human despite their condition was made in the image of God. I derive my value of animals in that as a human being I have been placed with the abilities and directive as a steward over them. Do animals deserve moral treatment? I would have to say yes. Would I eat the bacon? Yes. Is eating bacon devoid of moral treatment? No.

LysanderNemoinis:
I'm surprised...well, actually I'm NOT surprised that 8-Bit Philosophy didn't mention some of Singer's other theories and beliefs -- like how parents should have the right to kill their handicapped children after they've been born or that it's okay for people to have sex with animals so long as they can somehow "prove" they're not hurting the animal by doing so. Peter Singer is a reprehensible human being, and no one should take this sick bastard seriously.

While I agree that he was far from a golden human being, we can't just say he said these things we didn't like, so nothing he says should count. A lot of people out there have habits or act in ways that I don't like or care for, but that does not mean they shouldn't have an opinion or that there opinion carries with it no merit.

OT: I think animals do have some level of inalienable rights. Rationally, that makes perfect sense to me. That said, hurting a human by accident can land you in jail. Should it be the same for an animal? I don't think it should. If a child runs out in the street and we hit that child with our car, we face potential serious consequences because as the driver it is our job to watch out for these things. But when a dog or a squirrel does the same, should we face the same consequences? I don't think we should. As it stands, some animals are protected and you face sometimes worse consequences for killing one. For example, in NJ we sometimes have a bear season to keep the population down. But if you kill a bear outside a hunt year you face $10k in fines and up to 10 years in prison. I think this is ridiculous and there is extenuating circumstances like if your family is playing outside and bear wanders into the yard, should you not be able to protect them? I would say yes, but there are animal rights groups that say no, we have no right to protect ourselves.

But if we treat them the same as people, we can say that they have the same inalienable rights as us (ie. life and the pursuit of happiness). And just like in the case of people, those rights are protected so long as they don't rob someone else of those same rights. Meaning that you have the right to defend your home if someone invades it, including animals.

But it gets tricky when you look at the situation of people existing in the wild along with an animal. They don't own anything. So it can't be OK if we are out hiking and get attacked by an animal.

The truth is it's real tricky. Rights as animals go is not the same as rights as people go, no matter how you try to reason it out. I am looking at this as rational as I can, but one thing certain: People are not rational, and animals are far far far less rational than we are.

+1 to MonterCrit, but I also highly disagree that pain itself is a wrong. The sensation of pain is felt as a way to avoid harm. Example, a metal pot is heating on your stove. You touch it. The burn is intense, so you withdraw immediately. Remove the mentioned sensation and you may lose your arm, or worse. Pain, when we use it well, can be just as valuable as the other senses.

I wouldn't eat Pikachu bacon because he's a mouse and I imagine mouse meat must taste rather bad. Now Tepig/Pignite/Emboar bacon I would totally eat it! Specially if it was part of a Miltank burger :)

JohnZ117:
+1 to MonterCrit, but I also highly disagree that pain itself is a wrong. The sensation of pain is felt as a way to avoid harm. Example, a metal pot is heating on your stove. You touch it. The burn is intense, so you withdraw immediately. Remove the mentioned sensation and you may lose your arm, or worse. Pain, when we use it well, can be just as valuable as the other senses.

There are also those who derive pleasure from pain. So, if pain is inherently wrong, you are passing judgement on those who find it pleasurable.

OT: Who would eat Pickachu bacon? It's a mouse. Let the Meowths deal with the vermin. I'll take my bacon from Tepig and my steaks and burgers from Miltank, thank you very much.

Saltyk:

JohnZ117:
+1 to MonterCrit, but I also highly disagree that pain itself is a wrong. The sensation of pain is felt as a way to avoid harm. Example, a metal pot is heating on your stove. You touch it. The burn is intense, so you withdraw immediately. Remove the mentioned sensation and you may lose your arm, or worse. Pain, when we use it well, can be just as valuable as the other senses.

There are also those who derive pleasure from pain. So, if pain is inherently wrong, you are passing judgement on those who find it pleasurable.

I know of that pleasure and, generally typing, find nothing wrong with it. I chose a less controversial argument to better explain my position.

Treating animals with respect is crucial. And I think the mental thought of animals can be seen as non-equivalent to humans. How one branch of apes think is very different to another, and we are talking biological bases before going into thought basis of the individual, say how male bonobos would act in a situation compared to a male chimpanzees. And this is just from the hominidae family. Anecdotally I watched many different animals being clever in their own way, being encouraged to expand it helped both the pet and owner enrich their lifestyle. Animals should have rights, even if we consume them mind. And if the animal objects to this, there's always a court of law to settle the statement, if one can find one where this can be settled. And I don't mean animal protection groups representations. Most of them have selfish, company only intentions.
See this opens a can of worms we as a species have not opened ourselves yet to, if we ever do. Hell we struggle with representations in governments to reflect the wide public and not that of political parties, companies or the individuals. It's good we ask these questions. He have others which are more important & they need attention.

Johnny Novgorod:
I would eat Pikachu-bacon in a heartbeat.

So long as it didn't electrocute me. Hell yeah.

I've eaten Puffin. You seen a Puffin? They're fucking adorable! Didn't stop me.

That all seemed less like an argument for animal rights and more an argument to use as many drugs as possible. Pleasure being the only intrinsically good means taking Extacy would be the best thing you could possibly do. While at the same time having a job, working out in the gym, or going to the dentist would be terrible. My dog acts that way. She'll pig out on food till she's sick, and avoids going to the vet at all costs.

Funny, following that definition of what is good and what is bad would turn people into animals. Flawed reasoning.

While I believe animals can experience pain and that is immoral to hurt them I also take a pragmatic view that I enjoy eating many animals and animal products. I am all for society regulating the treatment of animals to try and eliminate abuse while at the same time allowing for the harvesting of animals for food. I believe the animals should be treated as well as possible while being harvested and that their pain and mental anguish should be minimized as much as practically possible but I do not believe that an animal's capacity to feel pain, both physical and mental, is enough to justify outlawing the consumption of animals and animal products as food.

I'm pretty certain the majority of things I eat were once living. This includes plants which weren't mentioned in this video. So I can't prevent anything living with or without a brain from being killed without starving.

However I'm all for anything else alive that isn't human getting human rights IF it could ever learn how to verbally communicate or write properly in a human language & obey the same laws as humans.

Ukomba:
That all seemed less like an argument for animal rights and more an argument to use as many drugs as possible. Pleasure being the only intrinsically good means taking Extacy would be the best thing you could possibly do. While at the same time having a job, working out in the gym, or going to the dentist would be terrible. My dog acts that way. She'll pig out on food till she's sick, and avoids going to the vet at all costs.

Funny, following that definition of what is good and what is bad would turn people into animals. Flawed reasoning.

Having a job, working out and going to the dentist may not feel good at the time but they do provide long term good feelings. You earn money from the job with witch you can pay for clothing, food, and shelter, as well as other pleasurable things, working out lets you stay healthy so that you have a higher quality of life and going to the dentist prevents painful tooth decay.

RatGouf:
I'm pretty certain the majority of things I eat were once living. This includes plants which weren't mentioned in this video. So I can't prevent anything living with or without a brain from being killed without starving.

However I'm all for anything else alive that isn't human getting human rights IF it could ever learn how to verbally communicate or write properly in a human language & obey the same laws as humans.

The argument made in the video wasn't that all living things should be spared pain, simply that anything that could experience pain should be spared pain and be given moral weight. A plant not having a central nervous system and seemingly unable to feel pain would not merit moral weight.

Amir Kondori:
The argument made in the video wasn't that all living things should be spared pain, simply that anything that could experience pain should be spared pain and be given moral weight. A plant not having a central nervous system and seemingly unable to feel pain would not merit moral weight.

About 1 minute in starting with Trends In Plant Science.
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/t85slm/thought-for-food---usda-meatless-mondays---plant-communication-research

RatGouf:

Amir Kondori:
The argument made in the video wasn't that all living things should be spared pain, simply that anything that could experience pain should be spared pain and be given moral weight. A plant not having a central nervous system and seemingly unable to feel pain would not merit moral weight.

About 1 minute in starting with Trends In Plant Science.
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/t85slm/thought-for-food---usda-meatless-mondays---plant-communication-research

Of course the word "talk" is being used anthropomorphically as the "communication" described be this research is not at all analogous to human speech nor is it evidence of a conscious mind in the plants.

vonSanneck:
See this opens a can of worms we as a species have not opened ourselves yet to, if we ever do. Hell we struggle with representations in governments to reflect the wide public and not that of political parties, companies or the individuals. It's good we ask these questions. He have others which are more important & they need attention.

Don't open that can and many will accuse cruelty to the worms. ;) Somethings definitely need to change, but possibly not until the greater problem is amended. I see no immorality in killing animals for meat, hell, given the most desperate of contexts, I think there can be justification for cannibalism. What society needs to do is be more willing to ask ourselves the tough questions, ignore the easy answers and seek out the Aristotelian means. And, realize that a great many problems may be solved by ridding itself of a cancer too many see as a goal.

Amir Kondori:

RatGouf:

Amir Kondori:
The argument made in the video wasn't that all living things should be spared pain, simply that anything that could experience pain should be spared pain and be given moral weight. A plant not having a central nervous system and seemingly unable to feel pain would not merit moral weight.

About 1 minute in starting with Trends In Plant Science.
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/t85slm/thought-for-food---usda-meatless-mondays---plant-communication-research

Of course the word "talk" is being used anthropomorphically as the "communication" described be this research is not at all analogous to human speech nor is it evidence of a conscious mind in the plants.

The point was plants somehow react to pain. Even if most animals can't even acknowledge it. So there is some moral weight there.

Amir Kondori:

Ukomba:
That all seemed less like an argument for animal rights and more an argument to use as many drugs as possible. Pleasure being the only intrinsically good means taking Extacy would be the best thing you could possibly do. While at the same time having a job, working out in the gym, or going to the dentist would be terrible. My dog acts that way. She'll pig out on food till she's sick, and avoids going to the vet at all costs.

Funny, following that definition of what is good and what is bad would turn people into animals. Flawed reasoning.

Having a job, working out and going to the dentist may not feel good at the time but they do provide long term good feelings. You earn money from the job with witch you can pay for clothing, food, and shelter, as well as other pleasurable things, working out lets you stay healthy so that you have a higher quality of life and going to the dentist prevents painful tooth decay.

No mention of delayed gratification in the definition, just pleasure = good, pain = bad. In any case, delayed gratification requires reasoning which was expressly thrown out. A short life with high levels of pleasure is (by the given definition) better than a longer, more responsible, one.

This is an argument to give animals rights, after all, and animals wouldn't suffer the pain of a doctor in order to feel better later. A Tiger with a broken leg is more likely to maul the doctor trying to help it than to suffer the pain of letting him set and bind it. You are clearly guilty of speciesism.

Ukomba:

Amir Kondori:

Ukomba:
That all seemed less like an argument for animal rights and more an argument to use as many drugs as possible. Pleasure being the only intrinsically good means taking Extacy would be the best thing you could possibly do. While at the same time having a job, working out in the gym, or going to the dentist would be terrible. My dog acts that way. She'll pig out on food till she's sick, and avoids going to the vet at all costs.

Funny, following that definition of what is good and what is bad would turn people into animals. Flawed reasoning.

Having a job, working out and going to the dentist may not feel good at the time but they do provide long term good feelings. You earn money from the job with witch you can pay for clothing, food, and shelter, as well as other pleasurable things, working out lets you stay healthy so that you have a higher quality of life and going to the dentist prevents painful tooth decay.

No mention of delayed gratification in the definition, just pleasure = good, pain = bad. In any case, delayed gratification requires reasoning which was expressly thrown out. A short life with high levels of pleasure is (by the given definition) better than a longer, more responsible, one.

This is an argument to give animals rights, after all, and animals wouldn't suffer the pain of a doctor in order to feel better later. A Tiger with a broken leg is more likely to maul the doctor trying to help it than to suffer the pain of letting him set and bind it. You are clearly guilty of speciesism.

The quote was about what is intrinsically good and what is intrinsically bad, that was then related to the topic of animal rights. I am speaking only to the quote.

LysanderNemoinis:
I'm surprised...well, actually I'm NOT surprised that 8-Bit Philosophy didn't mention some of Singer's other theories and beliefs -- like how parents should have the right to kill their handicapped children after they've been born or that it's okay for people to have sex with animals so long as they can somehow "prove" they're not hurting the animal by doing so. Peter Singer is a reprehensible human being, and no one should take this sick bastard seriously.

I disagree with many things that Nietzsche and Freud wrote. It doesn't mean that I can't agree on other points of theirs.

Amir Kondori:

Ukomba:

Amir Kondori:

Having a job, working out and going to the dentist may not feel good at the time but they do provide long term good feelings. You earn money from the job with witch you can pay for clothing, food, and shelter, as well as other pleasurable things, working out lets you stay healthy so that you have a higher quality of life and going to the dentist prevents painful tooth decay.

No mention of delayed gratification in the definition, just pleasure = good, pain = bad. In any case, delayed gratification requires reasoning which was expressly thrown out. A short life with high levels of pleasure is (by the given definition) better than a longer, more responsible, one.

This is an argument to give animals rights, after all, and animals wouldn't suffer the pain of a doctor in order to feel better later. A Tiger with a broken leg is more likely to maul the doctor trying to help it than to suffer the pain of letting him set and bind it. You are clearly guilty of speciesism.

The quote was about what is intrinsically good and what is intrinsically bad, that was then related to the topic of animal rights. I am speaking only to the quote.

Yes, and strictly by the quote Extacy is intrinsically good, and the Dentist is intrinsically bad. Long term health and prosperity is not part of it. If it was, it couldn't be applied to animals since they are not capable of that kind of understanding and long term planning.

Doom972:

MonsterCrit:

Doom972:

Exactly. Everything we can consume for nourishment has DNA and is therefore a living thing. Just because it doesn't have a mouth and can't scream in agony doesn't mean it's not suffering. Also, I wonder what your typical vegan's stance on killing bugs.

Actually there are now more than a few food products that have nothing natural in them...

Yes, but if you subsist only on these, you'll be missing vital nutrients which will lead to an early death.

Oh not at all.. most vitamins and minerals can be artificiall made and added to the mixture.. of course having to subsist on such things ... Early Death would be considered a Plus.

RatGouf:

Amir Kondori:

RatGouf:
About 1 minute in starting with Trends In Plant Science.
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/t85slm/thought-for-food---usda-meatless-mondays---plant-communication-research

Of course the word "talk" is being used anthropomorphically as the "communication" described be this research is not at all analogous to human speech nor is it evidence of a conscious mind in the plants.

The point was plants somehow react to pain. Even if most animals can't even acknowledge it. So there is some moral weight there.

,
Here's a blog in response to this kind of thinking: http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2004/01/do-plants-have-rights.html

NinjaDeathSlap:

Johnny Novgorod:
I would eat Pikachu-bacon in a heartbeat.

So long as it didn't electrocute me. Hell yeah.

I've eaten Puffin. You seen a Puffin? They're fucking adorable! Didn't stop me.

YOU MONSTER! I can't believe you'd do such a thing! Everyone knows the cute ones taste the worst, that's why gators are so delicious, they're ugly as sin.

On Topic: I respect the views of Singer quite a lot, despite some disagreement. His philosophy is at least fairly consistent and cohesive, even if they cause some people to dismiss outright, much like how many do with Kant. I'm still of the the opinion that animals deserve moral/ethical consideration and would prefer their instrumentalisation be limited as much as possible

Ukomba:

Amir Kondori:

Ukomba:

No mention of delayed gratification in the definition, just pleasure = good, pain = bad. In any case, delayed gratification requires reasoning which was expressly thrown out. A short life with high levels of pleasure is (by the given definition) better than a longer, more responsible, one.

This is an argument to give animals rights, after all, and animals wouldn't suffer the pain of a doctor in order to feel better later. A Tiger with a broken leg is more likely to maul the doctor trying to help it than to suffer the pain of letting him set and bind it. You are clearly guilty of speciesism.

The quote was about what is intrinsically good and what is intrinsically bad, that was then related to the topic of animal rights. I am speaking only to the quote.

Yes, and strictly by the quote Extacy is intrinsically good, and the Dentist is intrinsically bad. Long term health and prosperity is not part of it. If it was, it couldn't be applied to animals since they are not capable of that kind of understanding and long term planning.

We are talking about something being intrinsically good or instrumentally good and the idea here is that pleasure is intrinsically good, i.e. good in and of itself simply because it is. As with all philosophy there are many different views, consequentialist, deontological or objective views of intrinsic good. I tend to follow the consequentialist view that moral judgements should be made based on the consequences of actions, i.e. I would promote actions like visiting the dentist because they maximize long term pleasure. Taking ecstasy may produce short term pleasure and if someone can regulate their use of it I think it is moral to use. If someone cannot regulate their use and instead of causing pleasure it causes pain and strife I think it is immoral to use it.

I would definitely try some Pikachu bacon. It's probably a staple meal on some continent in the Pokemon Universe.

I'm on the fence about the idea that animals deserve the same rights as humans; however, I do believe they deserve the same level of consideration. We didn't always but nowadays when slaughtering a cow to make hamburger and steaks, we have ways to go about it where the cow doesn't have a long and unnecessarily cruel death. I'd say treating them with respect whether you're going to use them for food, pets or utilities is a start. I also think there should be adequate punishments for people who abuse animals--i.e., you leave your dog chained outside in harsh winter weather with no shelter or place to get warm.

We might be able to give certain animals some basic legal rights, but I think it would be a mistake to try and give all animals the exact same rights as humans. You'd spend way too much time trying to redefine those rights to include the animals, and especially with the unpredictable nature of wild animals, we would waste a lot of time and resources trying to determine if there was a legal case for certain things. Someone earlier mentioned the example of hitting a child vs hitting a squirrel. With all of the critters that randomly dash out into the road, how clogged would the justice system be if we started penalizing people for that? For each squirrel, possum and other piece of roadkill, we'd have to determine who was at fault and what the penalty should be based on the opportunities for the driver to avoid the incident. We'd have to send out a forensic team and cops to take evidence, etc. What a nightmare that would be.

I think the concept of the Monkeysphere (aka Dunbar's Number) extends to animals as well as humans. You can read all about it here, but for those who don't want to read the whole thing (you should, it's a really good article), it talks about how we only have room in our brains for a small number of people/animals to be considered, for a lack of a better word, 'real'. Which made you sadder: the death of your childhood pet, or the recent earthquake in Nepal? You're not a bad person for saying your pet's death affected you more, it's just how our brains are wired. Due to this wiring, we're perfectly willing to make the "hypocritical" decision that our pets should be pampered while other animals exist solely to be eaten, because our pets are more 'real' than that herd of cows about to become steaks.

Now, the minute cultured meat becomes economically viable, I'm going to be all over that, but my nutritional needs come first, so until then I'm going to keep eating animals.

Ukomba:

Amir Kondori:

Ukomba:

No mention of delayed gratification in the definition, just pleasure = good, pain = bad. In any case, delayed gratification requires reasoning which was expressly thrown out. A short life with high levels of pleasure is (by the given definition) better than a longer, more responsible, one.

This is an argument to give animals rights, after all, and animals wouldn't suffer the pain of a doctor in order to feel better later. A Tiger with a broken leg is more likely to maul the doctor trying to help it than to suffer the pain of letting him set and bind it. You are clearly guilty of speciesism.

The quote was about what is intrinsically good and what is intrinsically bad, that was then related to the topic of animal rights. I am speaking only to the quote.

Yes, and strictly by the quote Extacy is intrinsically good, and the Dentist is intrinsically bad. Long term health and prosperity is not part of it. If it was, it couldn't be applied to animals since they are not capable of that kind of understanding and long term planning.

Animals are definitely capable of long term planning. Squirrels gather and hide nuts so they have supplies for the winter. Bears eat loads of food before hibernating, so they've got enough fat to keep them going until they wake. Certain birds spend their time gathering ornaments for their nests, that they'll later use to attract mates. Dogs bury bones so they can come back and dig them up later.

Regarding injured animals attacking their carers, I'm pretty sure that's more the animal not knowing what's happening than not wishing to get better; zoo animals that are well cared for would be much less likely to maul the doctors helping them than wild animals who don't know the doctor's intentions. And injured animals lash out because they understand that their injury makes them weaker and thus easier to kill, which in itself is a display of a small amount of higher reasoning.

JohnZ117:

LysanderNemoinis:
I'm surprised...well, actually I'm NOT surprised that 8-Bit Philosophy didn't mention some of Singer's other theories and beliefs -- like how parents should have the right to kill their handicapped children after they've been born or that it's okay for people to have sex with animals so long as they can somehow "prove" they're not hurting the animal by doing so. Peter Singer is a reprehensible human being, and no one should take this sick bastard seriously.

I disagree with many things that Nietzsche and Freud wrote. It doesn't mean that I can't agree on other points of theirs.

It should also be acknowledged that Singer was not necessarily endorsing all of those ideas-- that is not what a good philosopher does. For example, people can put forth a moral case for the legalisation of drugs without advocating recreational drug use. One could do the exact same thing for capital punishment, protectionism, abortion, incest, or search and seizure without a warrant. Time to bow out, in case somebody calls me a "reprehensible human being" or "sick bastard."

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here