Listen, you ******* idiot, before you go running your stupid mouth and blathering about any more of this stupid shit that exists in your deluded little imagination, a human "child" possesses a greater level of self-awareness than a dog, so the child would be of greater moral value in that instance. If it came to a human infant versus an adult chimpanzee, the chimpanzee would possess a greater level of self-awareness and would be of greater moral value in that instance.
Listen, you dumb ****, NO level of self awareness in ANY animal trumps even a single retarded, underdeveloped human being. That is the end of the your logic. MEEEEEEP. The ******* End. NO adult chimp has a greater utility than a SINGLE human being; child or otherwise. THIS truly is one of the stupidest ******* tangents i've ever has the pleasure of reading on this forum.
You've also committed a rather common fallacy in inserting a personal perspective into the utilitarian equation. Many a parent would sooner save his three children from death by house collapse than save forty strangers from dying by fire, but that would not change the fact that according to an objective and neutral basis of the utilitarian perspective, it would be preferable to save the forty from fire.
yea! HAHAHAHA! because you can name a single ************ that would hid behind utilitarian bullshit to save ANY animal from a burning building than human strangers OR their own kid!
FORTY STRANGERS OR A PERSONAL KID: THEY ARE STILL HUMANS, you dumb *****. Now, tell me how many goldfish your moral imperative values above the life of a human being if the pet store goes up in flames, stupid.
You have been asked to justify your belief that a human is inherently superior to nonhuman animals even if those animals possess a greater level of self-awareness and a greater capacity to feel pain. You have FAILED to do so.
HAHA! because only a ******* inbred idiot would EVER argue that, at any stage of the game, a human being is LESS valuable than ANY animal life at any state of the game. Like I said, I hope you review your position in this thread the next time someone saves the life of their dog rather than your parent or kid. I mean, why save your family member when Scruffy gives an individual more utility value than your stranger family ever could?
Here you go again with it, you ******* moron. The argument from potential was addressed in the very first ******* post in this thread, but your dumb ass apparently can't read. It does not follow that an X has equal rights to a Y, and a potential X thus has equal rights to a Y. Tell me, do you consider it worse to drop an egg into a pot of boiling water or a chicken? An egg is a "potential" chicken, after all. But hopefully, you recognize the rather obvious fact that a chicken has a capacity to suffer from being dropped into a pot of boiling water that an egg does not, despite the fact that the egg is a "potential" chicken. Similarly, a grown person has a capacity to suffer that a fetus does not, (through the denial of future preferences and interests that he or she has developed as a self-aware being), despite the fact that a fetus is a "potential" person.
You also fall back on some form of the "future like ours" argument advocated by Don Marquis in that the fetus has a potential to become a person that an animal does not. But as I mentioned, contraception and celibacy also inhibit the development of a person, so your objection is to the active destruction of human life in the womb rather than the prevention of its existence. Thus, you would need to assert that a fetus already possesses certain morally valuable traits in and of itself, and it has been pointed out to you that many nonhuman animals possess greater levels of self-awareness and a capacity to feel pain than a human fetus does.
NEITHER THE EGG NOR CHICKEN IS A HUMAN BEING, stupid. No matter how much you avoid this FACT it will remain to be the case. Indeed, show me one animal fetus that ever became a HUMAN PERSON, stupid. If you can't name ******* names in this genetic ******* MIRACLE than you might as well pack up your bags and shit the **** up. Name dropping Don Marquis might impress your ethic professor, Freshman, but the complete failure of utilitarianism as a universal principal might just burst your little pseudo-intellectual bubble.
Contraceptions and abstinence don't PRODUCE FERTILIZED ZYGOTES. What part of the sexual development of human beings don't you understand? THERE IS NO PERSON to be inhibited. You fail, once again, at even the slightest hint of logical consistency.
And, as much as I give a **** about what you think I should attribute to a fetus I'm afraid I'm just going to have to remind you that the core of your argument, that humans are equivalent to animals across developmental stages, is a crock of shit in the first place. You know goddamn well you would not save a rabbit with more self awareness than a tucking toddler from a burning building just like I know you woulnd't. Why? Because your bullshit logic-wrestling with utilitarianism means jack shit in the realm of reality where it doesn't take a ******* dissertation to figiure out that a HUMAN > ANIMAL every day.
It would be a rather obvious fallacy of circular reasoning if you were to again claim that a fetus was a "potential" person.
Face it, people who try and insist that animals are more valuable than human beings, at any stage of the game, probably shouldn't be making value judgments on the reason of others.
