[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: StrongHeart
Reason tells us that the ability of the target to reciprocate is not necessary in order to extend it. That point is moot for we DO do it.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Reason tells us? What reason?

Revising that sentence of mine above, it should have just read, "As it regards extending the Principle of The Equal Consideration of Interests, the ability of the target to reciprocate is not necessary in order to extend it to them. That point is moot for we DO do it.

My reason is that I have a strong innate drive to protect other members of my species. What is your reason?

Not all have that drive. Many kill one another and war against groups within their species, showing more of a drive to protect members of their subgroups and destroy the others. Perhaps your drive is one more of empathy and sympathy since your reason does not translate to what history has thus far depicted for us. It seems we have an inate drive to protect our interests more so than any altruistic sense of duty to our species. If not, then why are we so fractured and conduct ourselves in ways that are not beneficial in protection to all?

I believe your use of equal consideration of interest and reason is rooted in sympathy and empathy. The difference it makes is this - not everyone has that same sympathy and empathy for animals, especially animals of low intelligence, like oysters. If you are trying to convince others of a set of rules, you need to convince them that they should believe in those rules. But, if your belief is rooted in emotions or innate tendencies (or some complex combination of them) that others do not share, then how will you convince them?

All that is exactly what I was suspecting you were getting at. I am well aware that convincing with empathy and sympathy makes a task much harder. That is why I reject that as the main bases for an argument. Reason cuts across, or it should cut across, groups with special interests.

Reason is what has appealed to people in the growth of the Animal Rights movement and has propelled it. Empathy and sympathy is what grows the Animal Welfare movement. They are different creatures but often morph into each other.

Sorry for those who argue against social movements (of which after they have taken root, have never failed to achieve the winning of rights), but reason is a hard thing to skirt around in that it is to be used non-prejudicial. And, that is what grows movements.

I did not become an Animal Rightist based on the arguments of sympathy or empathy. It brought me to the topic with interest while I was an Animal Welfarist, but the decision to give up flesh and eliminate as much exploitation of animals from my life as possible was impacted by reason as outlined in The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests and Utilitarianism.

Have you read any literature or books on Animal Rights that uses reason for their argument?