Loading ...If you’re fairly Internet savvy, you’re probably seen this before. If not, check it out. If you don’t laugh at this article, you have no soul.
Also, I kind of want […]
Original post: MonkeySphere
If you’re fairly Internet savvy, you’re probably seen this before. If not, check it out. If you don’t laugh at this article, you have no soul.
Also, I kind of want […]
Original post: MonkeySphere
As long as it’s mildly entertaining and keeps me from smoking it’s alright with me.
But if you do get one, you’d better be financially responsible for your monkey, and you damned well better not neglect him or her.
Child abuse, monkey abuse… let’s try not to be too anthropocentric here.
It’s actually an interesting question: Is it morally more wrong to abuse a child than a monkey? What about a severely mentally retarded person?
My inclination is that it’s more wrong to abuse a human child because that human child has the potential for moral agency. On the other hand I can’t apply the same reasoning to a severely brain damaged or mentally retarded person. The lack of potential for moral agency leaves them in the same boat as other much loved animals. Given this, I can’t say that it’s morally wrong to abuse either other than due to the harm that may be caused to other moral agents (humans) who care about them.
V: Thanks for turning me on to this site!! Very interesting and thought-provoking.
ugh.
Skimmed through it, thought it made a good point, but laugh? Must’ve skipped the funny parts or something.
It shouldn’t be intelligence or a grasp on morality that determines whether it is ethically questionable to harm something or someone. It should be its capacity for suffering. If something can suffer either physically or mentally (and even animals go crazy from abuse and neglect - certainly the mentally disabled can), then you’ve got a seriously loose grasp on basic logic if you honestly think there’s no moral imperative for preventing unnecessary harm.
If you believe otherwise, then you have a faulty understanding of morality, and therefore by your logic I get to treat you like shit because I’m clearly a superior person.
Yes, there are gray areas. Sometimes you have to hurt other creatures in self-defense, for food to survive, etc. Killing a cow (as humanely as possible, one would hope) to eat is not the same thing as kicking a puppy for no damn good reason. Executing a serial killer is in no way comparable to beating a retarded kid.
That kind of logic justifies the abuse V suffered from her mom. After all, the parent has lived longer, has more authority, has a job and is useful to society, is smarter than a kid, etc… is it a-ok for adults to beat, abuse, and/or rape children because they are worthless in their parent’s eyes? What determines “worth”, anyway? Being born with a certain I.Q. (does a person with an I.Q. 1 point higher than yours get to use you in any way they want)? Having no disabilities? Being a certain race? Being rich? Being ‘beautiful’? Being a certain age? Where does the line of human and inhuman begin?
On a side note, I’ve known plenty of wonderful mentally disabled children who are more than able to grasp basic moral concepts. They know its wrong to hit people, and they know it’s important to tell the truth. People like that more often than not have an innate innocence. Which is more than I can say for “normal” people, who are more often than not evil bastards with no regard for morality. If anything, someone who is capable of understanding morals but still disregards them anyway is way worse in my book than someone incapable of reasoning them out through no fault of their own.
Yeah… Let me clarify:
The article was mildly entertaining and kept me from smoking.
This got pretty deep pretty fast.
I just use the interweb to keep from smoking these days.
Child abuse is always bad… regardless of mental abilities or disabilities.
Your average (I don’t know if that’s what was meant by “normal”) person is most likely not an evil bastard with no regard for morality.
Subjectivity and semantics are often the cause of misunderstanding.
V, I know you can do better than this. Don’t you have anything to actually say. Cuz all this BS is damn near saying “no comment…”
Unfortunately, that’s what I’m saying.
I know you have a lot more to say. You might as well open the floodgates. There are a LOT more and a LOT bigger fish to fry than some noname mommyblogger rockstar wannabe. I say go for it. You’ve got nothing to lose.
I only put it this way because I know you can write at least 10 times better than me… and I know (at least I think I know) that you have a lot more to say.
If I’m wrong, just ignore me.
WOW… MONKEYZ CAN TYPE!
PWOT is greatness, glad you’re giving it some love.