Voluntaryancap

If the classification comes from our ability to reason or our moral reasoning, my question still stands. How do we KNOW that animals are incapable of moral reasoning? I've seen animals demonstrate empathy, pity, sadness, angst, etc… If we simply are unable to know this due to our inability to communicate with animals, how are they then different from a person that speaks a different language? Or a brain-dead individual? Personally I eat meat, and am not an animal rights activist or anything. This question just came from a conversation I had a while ago and it has never really been answered to my satisfaction.

Having recently read Rothbards The Ethics of Liberty. I find myself hung up on one part of it. It seems that people of the Rothbard line, such as Walter Block, hold that animals have no rights since they aren't human. I understand their point. But my question is a serious one. What makes us Human? I've struggled with this for quite some time. What about us as humans makes us deserving of certain 'inalienable' rights? Is it because we demonstrate free will and an ability to reason above base instinct? Certain animals can do that. Is it because we demonstrate problem solving techniques? Well various animals demonstrate that. The way I see it, if our humanity is based on the fact that we are able to vocalize it, could we not then reserve the right of humanity to humans that speak the same language as us? If we do not extend our rights to animals because they can not vocalize their will to us, that puts them, at least in my mind, in the same category as any human that speaks a different language. I would love your thoughts on this. What makes us 'Human'?

"Faith is a synonym for Error. Just as god is a synonym for that which does not exist." -Stefan Molyneux https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQA20RlZBt50L5Vj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FDB4vi6gRM70%2Fhqdefault.jpg&jq=100 Proofs for God Destroyed by a Philosophical Atheist HI-DEF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB4vi6gRM70&fmt=18 A philosophical examin...See more 23 January at 22:52 · Like · Remove Preview Amos Block Once again, a blatantly inappropriate analogy. 2+2 is demonstrably not 5. The non-existence of God is NOT a demonstrable fact (nor is the existence, but that's beside the point). 23 January at 22:54 · Like · 1 Danny Maguire However, Amos, the fact that existence is not demonstrable is the same thing as non-existance. Not being able to demonstrate the existence, demonstrates the non-existence. As for my analogy, it was used to convey the idea that it is possible to vocally disagree with somebodies belief system without intending to insult or degrade that person. 23 January at 23:01 · Like Amos Block No, it is not. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. That's not a matter of opinion, or rhetoric, but a simple fact. Your analogy compares a system in which one of the two opinions is measurably, demonstrably untrue. This is not the same as the question of the existence or non existence of God. 23 January at 23:02 · Like · 1 https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash2/t5/s32x32/1117997_1465392382_275979062_q.jpg Danny Maguire Then ignore the analogy. The point remains, it is possible to vocally disagree with somebody without intending to insult or degrade them. If I tell you there is a 45 ft pink unicorn in the room, but you can't touch it, hear it, taste it, feel it, see it or smell it, then it doesn't exist. The fact that there is a 100% absence of any evidence of it's existence, doesn't mean that there may still be a 45ft pink unicorn in the room. It means it doesn't exist. 23 January at 23:05 · Like https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash1/t5/s32x32/211588_713360457_389320996_q.jpg Amos Block And on and on with the obnoxious analogies, but OK, I'll ignore that one too. It is possible to vocally disagree with somebody without intending to insult or degrade them. I don't disagree with this, nor have I made any statements that contradict it....See More 23 January at 23:16 · Unlike · 1 https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash2/t5/s32x32/1117997_1465392382_275979062_q.jpg Danny Maguire So you agree that it is possible to "vocally disagree with somebody without intending to insult or degrade them." Then how can you confidently assert that that Molyneux is degrading or insulting other peoples faith based solely on the quote above? The mistake we made in this analogy game is that we did not begin with agreed upon definitions. 23 January at 23:31 · Like https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash2/t5/s32x32/1117997_1465392382_275979062_q.jpg Danny Maguire It seems we have differing definitions for 'existence' 23 January at 23:33 · Edited · Like https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash2/t5/s32x32/1116625_646538656_1985633006_q.jpg Russell Donald Hey Danny, just so you know, I am not offended. Oh, and God loves you