MedVision ad

Is it morally permissible to hunt retards for sport? (1 Viewer)

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
It's no worse than killing any other animal of similar intellectual ability.

Which is to say, it's probably quite bad to kill animals of limited intellectual ability without just cause.

A mans worth, above and beyond other species, is given by his cognitive abilities being above and beyond those other species are capable of. Where a mans cognitive abilities are equal or less than another, non-human species, there is no good justification for granting him protection above and beyond that available to the non-human organism.
 

jennyfromdabloc

coked up sociopath
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
735
Location
The American Gardens Building
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
Now here me out NCAP, before reporting me to the various authorities. We are here for philosophical discourse! I strongly object to the hunting of retards for sport due to my prima facie belief that it is wrong. WROONG. But we all know that any philosopher who claims anything prima facie has lost the game. So let us begin.

1. The severely retarded are not people. Those with Down syndrome are people. Those with ADHD are people. A comatose person is not. A pig is not a person. And similarly, anyone below a certain threshold (let us say for argument's sake, that one must be more intelligent than a pig to count as a person) of intelligence and human functioning is not a person.
2. It is morally permissible to hunt animals for sport.

Hence, it is morally permissible to hunt those humans who are below a certain level of human functioning for the enjoyment and satisfaction of people. The "animalistic humans" being hunted cannot process pain and suffering on the level that a human can, and furthermore, our (persons) happyness overrides any suffering that they endure.

Discuss.
The problem here is assumption 2.

You made a thread supposedly questioning societies assumptions, but based your entire argument on a particularly retarded and difficult to justify assumption.
 

JohnMcGee

Banned
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
408
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Graney said:
A mans worth, above and beyond other species, is given by his cognitive abilities being above and beyond those other species are capable of. Where a mans cognitive abilities are equal or less than another, non-human species, there is no good justification for granting him protection above and beyond that available to the non-human organism.
a) Cognitive worth, in that restricted definition, is no grounds for affording man any protection. there has to be further explanation as to how that cognitive ability affords the right of moral superiority.
b) I think it ignores an in built urge, or an obligation almost, for a species to value itself and to propagate itself above all others.

my belief is that a) we have grounds to treat people above all other animals as it's in built to our biology, and b) undue suffering is something that ought to be restricted (why? dunno), and our higher cognitive ability nessecarily means that we suffer more intensely.
 

JohnMcGee

Banned
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
408
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
The problem here is assumption 2.

You made a thread supposedly questioning societies assumptions, but based your entire argument on a particularly retarded and difficult to justify assumption.
i suppose i should have moved a point in made in the conclusion and made it assumption 3, zimmerman my fren
 

JohnMcGee

Banned
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
408
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
OH, OH, OKAY, EVERYONE GANG UP ON THE GUY THAT WANTS TO HUNT RETARDS FOR SPORT

typical

>_<
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
a) Cognitive worth, in that restricted definition, is no grounds for affording man any protection. there has to be further explanation as to how that cognitive ability affords the right of moral superiority.
b) I think it ignores an in built urge, or an obligation almost, for a species to value itself and to propagate itself above all others.

my belief is that a) we have grounds to treat people above all other animals as it's in built to our biology, and b) undue suffering is something that ought to be restricted (why? dunno), and our higher cognitive ability nessecarily means that we suffer more intensely.
I regret saying cognitive ability gives man value above and beyond, that was poor expression, but rather, it's a hierarchy, all life has inherent value and should be allowed to live, all life should be afforded inherent protection.

The higher value only comes into play where you have a choice between an animal life and a human life re: testing experimental drugs on animals, it would be acceptable to sacrifice some animal life for a greater number of humans to survive. Without appealing to emotion, this 'in-built urge' to which you refer, you can determine multiple means by which the human life can be argued to have greater value when it is a choice between the two.

We have in-built urges to do lots of things, often contrary things. We have inbuilt urges to all forms of prejudice- racism, sexism, distaste for the disabled and disfigured etc... a supposed 'inbuilt urge' is a poor justification for anything. I would like to throw out 'inbuilt urges' entirely in decision making, and act on a reasoned philosophy.

In terms of your beliefs- I agree entirely with b)

b) undue suffering is something that ought to be restricted (why? dunno), and our higher cognitive ability nessecarily means that we suffer more intensely.
That is among the reasons that you would accord a healthy adult human life greater protection. However in the case of this thread, or in considering whether a fetus can be aborted, we are referring to organisms that do not have this higher cognitive ability, that is the crux of the matter, many animals would be able to suffer to a much greater extent than these 'humans' of limited ability, which is exactly the point I was making, he who suffers most, deserves greatest protection, and not all that is biologically human suffers in equal capacity.
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
the argument is invalid, even if you framed it in such a way that it's valid, it will still be unsound since your second premise will always be false no matter how you word it


/logic
 

jazzzod

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
135
Location
Perpetuity
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Your argument is weak and invalid.

/Closethread.

Go fuck a tree or something.
 

jazzzod

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
135
Location
Perpetuity
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
You questioned its validity.

I condemned him and told him to go fuck a tree.

Comprende?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top