What’s the powerful argument to this?

[SkepticalScience]

Interesting comments.

Reading a few of the comments made me think of another re-write of the same letter. Has the argument changed much, if the letter now read:

Sir,
You appeal for money to feed the hungry disabled children. Very laudable, no doubt. But it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that there are thousands of non-disabled children who are also hungry on the very same continent of Africa. There'll be time enough to worry about the hungry disabled children when we've fed every last one of the non-disabled children. Let's get our priorities right, please!

 

[yanit]

A Point of Clarification

Now, when you say 'special'...

Alright, I think this was said in jest but ... seriously people, define what you mean when you say "special." I think this is the root of much misunderstanding in this thread.

Reading the original essay, my understanding is that Dawkins meant "special" to mean "greater than" or "more important". Not "different", not "unique" (because, as Darat said, every organism can claim uniqueness) ... but more deserving of life.

The speciesist assumption that lurks here is very simple. Humans are humans and gorillas are animals. There is an unquestioned yawning gulf between them such that the life of a single human child is worth more than the lives of all the gorillas in the world. The 'worth' of an animal's life is just its replacement cost to its owner--or, in the case of a rare species, to humanity. But tie the label Homo sapiens even to a tiny piece of insensible, embryonic tissue, and its life suddenly leaps to infinite, uncomputable value.

*Ding!*
Round Two!

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Is there any species on earth that claim doesn't apply to?

What other species can build a plane a fly it? Each species may have some sort of unique trait, but no others have our intelligence. Doesn't make us better, but it sets us apart and can cause us to be quite arrogant.

 

[CurtC]

This is starting to sound like the sort of jokes mathematicians tell among themselves.

Is that joke anything like The Aristocrats?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Alright, I think this was said in jest but ... seriously people, define what you mean when you say "special." I think this is the root of much misunderstanding in this thread.

Reading the original essay, my understanding is that Dawkins meant "special" to mean "greater than" or "more important". Not "different", not "unique" (because, as Darat said, every organism can claim uniqueness) ... but more deserving of life.



*Ding!*
Round Two!

Hmmm. Ethics. Tough stuff.

I don't think any one thing is "more deserving" of life. When it comes to HAVING to choose one over another, we will always pick based on variables at the time. No two situations are ever the same.

Let's say you have to save one of two. Your dad or your dog. If you HATE your dad because of something (say he molested you), then you'll take the dog. If you love your dad, you'll probably let the dog slip away.

It just depends on the situation.