[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Masa

I presume you also believe in evolution theory.

If you hold the belief that evolution is not how humans came to be, then you should read this thead. Please read the entire thread, all posts, and comment.

Look despite what you're trying to tell me humans and animals are incomparable. Animals can't tell right from wrong, humans have free will, Animals act on instinct. Animals, with few exceptions, notably cetaceans and simians, do not have a sense of self as do humans, humans have the ability to conceptualize, animals do not as evidenced time and time again. Humans have sex for pleasure, animals do not with the exception of dolphins and Pygmy chimpanzees. This has been proven time and time again. Animals don't murder out of lust or greed, but in defense of young and territory, and on instinct alone, not premeditation. The differences go on and on.

You should read up on etology and behavioural science before stating your personal opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. The paragraph above contains numerious errors. Chimaera182 has already pointed out most of them, but I want to stress that your statements above are lacking in correct information.

You may think that you can be born as an animal, well I don't, I believe animals don't have a soul.
At least not the kind of soul that humans have. We aren't just brain, heart and body.

If you argue that humans and other species are different based on your religious belief that is one thing. I don't share your beliefs, but I accept your arguments. I do however not accept that you mix your religious arguments with erranous pseudo-facts as the ones in your paragraph above. Please keep those apart; your religious arguments do not become stronger or more valid because you throw in factual errors about human and animal behaviour.

Originally Posted by Fiona

In the end I do not think it is possible to demonstrate any conclusive difference between humans and animals. Whatever dimensions you pick, there is overlap. For example there are human beings so badly disabled that they demonstrate no discernible intelligence at all. They are still human but in functional terms they are less intelligent than many animals.

Whereas I do agree with you that there is overlap, I do not agree that overlap in principle makes distiction impossible. There is a 60% overlap between the genome of yeast and the human genome; yet, I would clearly say the two species are distictly different and a meaningful, non-arbitrary, separation can be made.

What I do think though, is that the question of functional value (like intelligence, ability, behaviour) is relevant if differences in functional value is to serve as an argument for differences is value and/or rights. A person who argue that humans have more rights based on more powerful cognitive skills, must consequently agree that healthy humans has more rights than human beings with developmental disorders, and that chimps have more rights than human beings with severe cognitive impairment. This consequence is important to see.

I agree with Lestat that:

Originally Posted by Lestat

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.

but if "cognitive skills" or other function-based criteria are the sole critera, then it is some other quality as well, a specific "being-human-quality" that makes you value unfunctional specimen of one species higher than functional specimen of the other species.

As controversial as it may sound to many of you, the consequence of my "benchmarks" as I stated in my first post, is that I am not very "species loyal". If a human being lacks the potential for acting outside its own immediate sphere, for instance due to severe cognitive impairment, there is no reason why this human being should have more rights or be worth more, than a healthy chimp. Belonging to the species Homo sapiens does not, in my value system, give you any certain rights by birth. If I get demented, it's better to use me for medical experiments (not that it is scientifically valid, just as an example) than a healthy and functioning non-human primate.