GC & QT: Where should we draw the line between human rights and entitlement?

submitted by Penultimate_Penance from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Why though? We demand sociopaths to obey laws that have a moral basis even though the may not personally experience the existence of morals. Is it just majority rules?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It’s because sociopaths have to obey the law to protect other humans. It’s not “majority rules” it’s “humans in general rule” over your (the sociopath, not you lol) desire to harm them. A sociopath would be able to get away with torturing and killing an animal, as long as it’s not someone’s pet (to be fair there’s a few other exceptions, but generally speaking humans can do all manner of fucked up things to animals and it’s legal, though frowned upon. I agree that’s fucked up, but Im pointing out that they can get away with it, because it’s an animal, not a human).

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Okay, so then if a population of Neanderthals was discovered alive today should it be legally permissible to “farm” and eat them as they’re not “human”?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The word “human” is literally in the definition of “Neanderthal” So, no lol

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

For some taxonomic systems not others, but honestly this just moves the problem down the line (not surprising as species are a social construct). What about Homo habilis? Or Australopithecus? What group does “human rights” not cover?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

“What group does “human rights” not cover?”

Non humans. Literally that’s my whole point. Human rights don’t cover animals, or species that aren’t/weren’t human. If we are talking about extinct types of humans who will never exist again but that you’re mentioning solely for the sake of argument, they are still considered a type of human if they were considered humans when they existed. That’s why you’re using them as an example, as opposed to apes or gorillas or dinosaurs.

No matter what example you come up with, animals are still not human and still not covered under human rights. I’m not sure why you keep offering extinct types of humans, they don’t exist anymore and when they did, they likely killed and ate animals themselves.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That’s why you’re using them as an example, as opposed to apes or gorillas or dinosaurs.

It's not ok to eat a gorilla, though, is it?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That has nothing to do with what I said. I’m saying they didn’t use a gorilla as an example, they used examples of primitive humans.

And there are actually some cultures that eat gorillas. It’s actually the cause of a poaching problem in Central African countries.