: :Humans possess mental faculties that place them a rung above animals on the moral scale. : And if you have a chimpanzee with the equivalent intelligence of a human 5 year old, and a severely retarded man with the intelligence of a 2 year old, then by your logic, we should experiment on the man? So much for the mental faculties argument...
Not at all. Chimps cannot by definition have human intelligence. The moral worth of the human is in any case greater. It is the question of potential capacity that is important here. So much for the 'so much for the mental faculties argument'...
: : Now, let me state another general principle: The suffering of a human should not be made subservient to the suffering of an animal. This follows from the fact that humans are of greater moral worth than an animal.
: Says who, you? Not only that, but if we can prevent the suffering of human and nonhuman animals, we (as moral agents) should do so.
Fine, i agree with that, as a general principle.
: : A similar consideration applies in relation to the hopi. If the suffering that the hopi must endure as a result of no longer being allowed to sacrifice eagles is greater than the suffering of the eagles then it would be immoral not to let the hopi continue in their ancient practices.
: Oh the poor Hopi. They can't engage in a religious ritual just so a bird doesn't die a slow and agonizing death. You really know how to tip the scales, Cope.
(I wasn't attempting to tip the scales. Merely stating the principle under consideration. A balancing principle with evidence yet to be adduced).
Oh yes, great rebuttal. Your arrogance leaves you unable to understand other peoples culture. You seem to think that to the hopi it is just a ritual torture. Your secular bias means that you think religion is less important than an animals life, where to the hopi (and others), their god is by far more important. It is as sacred to them as it is for christians to worship christ.
As you have not even bothered to look into the matter, HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THE HOPI WILL SUFFER. You make the crucial mistake of assuming that they are just like you or that they CAN be just like you.
The question being is the suffering of the hopi going to be greater than that of a few birds. As you seem so incredulous, lets take a balanced look (drawing on what i have laready said).
The Birds:
-Given a luxuriant lifestyle until being sacrificed for home dance.
-There is no question of the birds being endangered as a species.
-There is no question of the birds suffering until the moment of their sacrifice arrives.
The hopi:
-Sacrifice of the birds is a sacred matter. It is how they worship their gods. They use the feathers of dead birds in every religous ceremony.
-removal of the custom would likely have a devestating effect on hopi culture and the hopi psyche.
-Attempts to make the practice illegal would be virtually unenforceaBLE excepting forced removals from hopi lands or the like.
: : An aNIMAL can die only in a physical sense. A human on the other hand can suffer a spiritual as well as a physical demise. Who has ever seen an animal so broken in spirit that they have been unable to raise themselves from their bed or so sunken in despair that they throw themselves off a cliff. I myself have never seen this. (I do not doubt that animals possess some crude form of emotion but i think it a mere trifle in comparison to humanity).
: Shows what you know about animals: zip. Anyone who knows animals, from zookeepers to people with pets, knows that animals possess rich emotional lives and can become so depressed, they starve themselves to death. As for souls, I can guarantee you that animals have souls -- it's humans, the only animals who knowingly and willfully torture other animals (including humans) I wonder about.
That is just crap. there is noi way in the world you can equate emotional life of an animal to that of a human. Is an animal failing to eat food depression? Or is it more likely something else. Like a form of distress that falls way below any conception of human emotion. Or can you now read the minds of animals?
: : Given what i have read, i believe that there must at least be a presumption that the hopi's very being is so tied to their religous practices that if this sacred practice were to be taken away from them (assuming one could find a way to successfully enforce the rule in any case, see below) they would be left to live in spiritual turmoil. Their existence would be made so base as to not be not worth living. To disallow the practice would drive a wedge between the hopi and their gods. Would you tell a christian they can no longer worship christ?
: The Hopi are human beings. Human beings can adapt. You ought to give them more credit, Mr. Animal-Sacrifice-Is-Essential.
This shows what you know about human beings. Perhaps you should associate with them a little more than your animal friends. If someone told you you could no longer practice animals rights activism, how would you feel? Do you think you could adapt to that?
: : In support of these matters i refer my opponents AGAIN to bernand williams (perhaps this time they will bother to read it):
: I disagree with Mr. Williams (and unless he's God, I have every right to).
And that ius a good enough rebuttal is it. Based on what? Your emotions?
: : As a final point i would ask my opponents to consider exactly how they would enforce their 'moral' law. Would you fine the hopi at first? Then as they continued send them to gaol? Would that not be unjust? Could the hopi not in any case raise the defense of necessity (which is really another moral exception).
: I'd enforce it like we enforce any other law against animal cruelty. Fines, then jail time, and rightfully so.
Oh yeah, real good and you say you are for human compassion.
