[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Lestat

Then we must agree to disagree.

I feel one has to make laws & rules (in this case lets say rules of behaviour to other living beings) on general principles and cases and only then refine towards the individual cases. If rules are hand taloired to each individual case the system becomes complex and inconsistent (even more so than it is already).

I do not disagree, exactly. Rules must be based on general principles, as you say. However in determining general principles we must start with the individual, and consider the effects of those rules on real people (and perhaps animals) and review them on that basis. We are not very good at foreseeing the consequences of the rules we make, I think.

And words matter. If we say that people are to be viewed as special for the kinds of reasons we have seen put forward here, then there are dangers which are not abstract. The cases I have mentioned - those who show no intelligence, or lack speech - are vulnerable. In a good society their rights are recognised and safeguarded,as you say. But if we depend on such reasoning then there are people who will use the argument to withdraw those rights from the disabled and ultimately from the morally reprehensible (by their lights). For me it is better to recognise the irrational element in such ethical systems. It makes it more robust, paradoxically. So I think

So on general principles and until proof of the contrary, I say there is a difference between humans and animals, in that humans as a species have shown a remarkable combination of self-awareness, abstract thought and conceptualising that they communicate amongst each other, which is not present in other species.

There is no argument about whether we have our special abilities and talents. Of course we do. Elevate them to special status? I think largely because they are ours, as I said above

And on this basis I think you can argue that as there is a difference between humans & animals, you can argue for different rules system where animals and humans are compared.

It remains a fact that "speciesloyalty" is a factor of course; but it is also a fact that rules of behaviour towards humans can be discussed with the eventual recipients of rights (sometimes only in simple terms, such as with young children and mentally impaired people) and thus the responsibilities that go along with them can also be imparted. This is impossible with animals. The furthest we get is "training". Or in other words: human rights and the rules of behaviour amongst humans are something we agree upon. The rights of other specieses and the rules of behaviour towards other specieses have to be decided upon without any input from them. And after that their enforcement and control is uniquely in the hands of mankind. That is what gives us our unique position.

There is a difference but I do not think it is as clear cut as you imply. You again describe the ideal society, but the fact remains that we cannot devise rules for babies or the profoundly impaired with their input: and we do not. The difference in power is real, and of course we have the ultimate control over our relationship with animals, at least for now and possibly for as long as we exist. And in the past we have not always negotiated in the way you describe even with fully functioning adult human beings. Physical power has always been important alongside moral thinking.

I am not arguing for equality of status, as you realise. I am partisan, but unlike you I think it is due to species loyalty. That may not be the whole story. But I am not persuaded your postion is wholly logical, and I hope that does not offend you