Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
So when the Nazis were killing the jews the fact that jews were human beings was irrelevant to whether or not the Nazis were behaving morally?
Yes it was irrelevant. They were worthy of moral consideration irrespective of their human status. You're the one on shaky ground if you're going to start making moral decisions based on accidents of biochemistry - what if some DNA marker is found which
does segregate us based on race. Whose moral position is going to do the most harm then?
Quote:
Are you arguing that humanity or the quality of being human, is not in and of itself worthy of moral consideration?
I'm arguing that you've provided no reason to think it does, yet continue to use it as an axiom.
Quote:
You already know how I feel about that line of thinking. Its the line of thinking that has justified countless genocides. Don't like someone then declare them not a human being or not worthy of moral consideration and then its okay for you to kill them.
Except that isnt my line of thinking -
you're the one who thinks that humanity is relevant to forming moral judgements, not me. If someone declares a group of people inhuman they dont have the right to kill them, even if the characterisation is correct.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, by the way. You continually try to 'deduce' a contradiction from my beliefs by appending "Being human is what entitles one to being considered in moral questions" even though I keep telling you that isnt my view.
You also provide no argument for why humanity, in and of itself, should entitle one to any rights. You just ask "Isn't it obvious?" or "Wouldnt the world be a better place?" or similar.