I don't see anything ad hoc about the distinction. We hold the rights of children under reserve. As an infant human who will grow into a being who will exercise moral reason the child comes under the umbrella of human rights.
I'm afraid it is not so simple. First, not all infants and children will grow into beings capable of exercising moral reason. Consider the terminally ill, for example. Second, your distinction rests on potentiality confusion: if an X is a potential Y, it does not have the rights of Y (because it's still an X). Third, why bother talking about infants? Would about an eight month old fetus? Four months old? An embryo?
A similar, though different concession is made to those mentally incapable of fully excercising moral reason.
How so? They will never be a member of the "moral community."
Towhit, a 2 year would never find himself on murder charge (or any criminal charge for that matter).
Yes, two year olds seem to lack this thing called "moral agency."
A chimpanzee, or lion or whatever will never possess the moral reason neeeded to understnad what murder or assault is for example. A lion that attacks someone in the wild will not be accused of a crime and prosecuted.
You're right! I failed to consider the truly awesome threat animals pose to humans.
RandFan blathered the following:
There are no claims. I'm only stating facts.
Uproarious laughter ensues. I love this charming tendency to inflate not only yourself but your arguments. Perhaps it gives you a feeling of adequacy, or basic competence. You do realize claims can be supported by facts, right? You do realize the assertion "there are no claims" is itself a claim, yes? You are aware that you're a joke, no? As it so happens those "facts" -- if that's what we want to pretend to call them for a moment -- are highly questionable. They're also, as I said, beside the point. There's a rich literature on the subject worth exploring, but this goes beyond the purview of my posts (for the moment).
I apparently wrote:
It's not as though -- as you sometimes come close to unintentionally suggesting -- we're taking animals out of the wild and raising them in a better environment.
RandFan apparently "replied" with the following:
It may very well often be a better environment. In the wild most animals are killed and eaten shortly after birth. In the wild animals go hungry, and are at great peril to disease, injury and the elements. Domesticated animals aren't.
How does this have anything to do with what I said? You're essentially repeating yourself, continuing with this distracting comparison. Domesticated animals cope with different forms of abuse and distress. To choose an example almost at random from those cited above, domesticated animals, for the most part, do not need to worry about getting enough food. Their ailments often stem from being over-fed. I'm not at all sure why you also listed "disease" and "injury" as a favorable comparison for your case, but then you've never made a great deal of sense.
Yes, it is a fact. Saying it is not will not change it. What argument did you follow-up with?
Is this where I say, "No, it isn't a fact"? It's the argument that species is a morally arbitrary characteristic that is basic to animal rights philosophy (This also counts for my reply to a poster below who blabbed something about "human DNA".) We can indulge in a rather elementary thought exercise: suppose intelligent alien life discovers human beings (or vice versa): are we to evaluate their DNA? What will give them rights? Or perhaps a less appealing scenario to reflect power imbalances: why should they recognize our rights? It can't be because we are a particular species, or because of our molecular makeup. Presumably what is binding are morally relevant characteristics... which are...what?
Humans are moral agents. We are offended by unnecessary suffering. Anti-cruelty laws are human constructs to reduce unnecessary suffering because of our ability to empathize. We understand what it is to suffer and we are opposed to the needless suffering of animals. That's a one way street though.
So you're saying that it's just a convention? What about the people who contend that this human empathy is misplaced. It's an unthinking warm-fuzzy. They're ambitious future Senators and medical doctors who want to conduct experiments on cats. Here's the question: if somebody regularly tortures cats (say) and nobody ever learns about it, then did the torturer do anything morally wrong?
If you recognize these laws as legitimate, then what argument can you provide if a lot of people decide that eating meat imposes unnecessary suffering?
