TheFallen,
You have made several claims (false equivalency / non-rational / appeal to emotion) about my words, but you haven't stated how these descriptors are applicable to any specific sentences or sentiments of mine. It's easy to make blanket statements. Could you cite some examples and your reasoning, so I can respond? I am happy to contest these claims, as long as you take into account everything I have written up until this time.
Your other questions I can divide into two main topics:
--------------------
Where are you going to draw your line and upon what logical basis?
To begin with, I note that the question of 'where to draw the line' is not specific to animal issues. There is ongoing debate about the rights of the (human) unborn. At what point can we say for certain that the human foetus is sufficiently developed to have substantive experiences which have moral significance? At what point can we say that a growing human is an individual worthy of protection, regardless of their dependency on others? 20 weeks old? 30 weeks? Sometime in between the two? After birth? We can take measurements (EEG), but it doesn't seem that there is any exact science to help us decide. The same ambiguity (and controversy) exists when doctors make the decision to switch off the life support of comatose and brain dead human patients.
You are justified in noting this ambiguity regarding 'where to draw the line' between organisms which are accorded moral significance and those which are not. Let me be upfront with you: it is impossible for us to determine with any precision how complex and matured are the brains, nervous systems, pain receptors and subsequent experiences of individual organisms. This is no barrier to human and animal rights however, as we can make two observations:
(1) It is indisputable that many animals (particularly mammals) including but not limited to cows, pigs, sheep, dolphins and apes such as humans at least a year old are ABOVE THE LINE, wherever we draw it. See the 'Subject-of-a-life' criteria of Tom Regan (author of The Case For Animal Rights):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Animal_Rights
Please note that the single paragraph quoted in this link cannot fully articulate the criteria, which is explained in a whole chapter (Animal Welfare) of Regan's book. Also, possession of the features described are said to be a SUFFICIENT, but not necessary criterion for the attribution of rights.
Tom Regan:
I want to make it as clear as possible that we can make some morally informed judgements about some animals without having to know everything about all animals.
(2) It is indisputable that some organisms are BELOW THE LINE: those which lack a brain, nervous system and pain receptors (or any similarly complex physical features that could conceivably serve a similar function). These organisms (bacteria, plants) are not capable of subjective experience according to science, yet alone the features outlined above. These organisms cannot be regarded as individuals.
Any attempt to answer the question of where to mark the lower 'cut-off' point begins with a judgement call as to which of the features described above are a NECESSARY condition for the attribution of rights, followed by scientific determination of the existence of such features (insofar as this is possible). We will likely give some organisms the benefit of the doubt. I don't see why we should exclude amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, invertebrates or anthropods from this group. The only requirement of us as judges is that having established criteria, we apply it as consistently as practically possible.
Is it also your view that if we sometimes make subjective, purely arbitrary decisions about the experiences of some human beings, that no human being should have rights? Some people do believe that 'being human' as a criteria is open to 'reductio ad absurdum' and find zygote and embryo rights a laughable idea.
Lastly, 'reductio ad absurdum' was once used as an objection to granting rights to women. It can appeal to peoples prejudices.
Peter Singer:
In fact, in the past the idea of "The Rights of Animals" really has been used to parody the case for women's rights. When Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of later feminists, published her Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, her ideas were widely regarded as absurd, and they were satirized in an anonymous publication entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. The author of this satire (actually Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher) tried to refute Wollstonecraft's reasonings by showing that they could be carried one stage further. If sound when applied to women, why should the arguments not be applied to dogs, cats, and horses? They seemed to hold equally well for these "brutes"; yet to hold that brutes had rights was manifestly absurd; therefore the reasoning by which this conclusion had been reached must be unsound, and if unsound when applied to brutes, it must also be unsound when applied to women, since the very same arguments had been used in each case.
--------------------
Is it okay to swat that annoying fly? Or use head lice shampoo on your children? A fly or a head louse is easily distinguishable from a mere "object" or other inanimate thing, after all. But perhaps in your book (and note the "your"), you'd maintain that insects don't have a "subjective experiential life"?
The nervous systems of insects (ganglionic) are quite different to those of animals. Do they have subjective experiences? I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt (see previous point), fully realising that I may be attributing to them more than they are due. Therefore, I try to avoid harming innocuous flies, ants, grasshoppers and other insects deliberately. If they are in my personal space, I move them. If they are visible in my path, I walk around them. Parasites and other potentially harmful organisms (such as mosquitos which can carry blood-borne diseases, and venomous ants) are another matter.
All individuals have the right to be treated with respect. We fail to treat them with respect when we regard them as mere tools, objects, commodities or renewable resources. However, the prima facie right not to be harmed that we should accord to them is NOT inviolable. When a human being fails to respect another individual, or harms them without adequate justification, their right not to be harmed CAN be over-ridden. This accounts for self-defense against violent acts, punishment of crimes, the neutralisation of innocent threats (those posed by mentally deranged individuals and others incapable of knowing right from wrong). There are some more complicated cases I won't go into here.
Parasitoids (as is the case with predatory humans and animals) can cause death. Parasites can reduce biological fitness. Aside from any potential for physical harm they have, they can degrade the quality of life of other individuals by persistently invading personal space, causing physical discomfort, interfering with bodily integrity and ruining physical appearance.
Therefore, we are justified in removing head lice and other harmful organisms from our bodies. Preferably with non-lethal means, but if that is not practical then yes, with lethal means such as shampoo.
Humans are all equal regardless of their food choices.
I'm not questioning your equality.
Moral authority does not come from the individual speaking (or our personal like or dislike of the speaker or their values) - it comes from the validation of just claims (rights) and the rejection of unjust claims. It is undermined by hypocrisy.
