And Albert Schweitzer!
It's OK to swat a fly, right? It's OK to kill a mosquito, a cockroach, a mouse.
Why is it OK to kill these innocent lives? There's only one answer that makes sense:
But are all animals equally fair game? What about a dog? a cat? a dolphin?
There are differences. It is worse to kill a cat than a lizard. It is worse to kill a dolphin than a cat. Sometimes it is so wrong that we make it illegal to kill a certain animal.
It's not just that the more intelligent animals are superior and more deserving to be protected. Some select animals might be more valuable because they are of an endangered species and so should receive more protection. There is a long list of criteria to determine which ones are more valuable and so less permissible to be killed.
Someone might try to draw up this list, enumerating all the criteria, in order. That isn't necessary here. Suffice it to say that there is such a comprehensive list, and it is not difficult for reasonable people to agree generally on what animals would be on that list, and the order of them, from the more important (superior) to the less important.
Now, what about the human animals. Humans go at the top of that list. Right?
But wait! Do ALL humans go at the top of that list? Is every human superior to every non-human? Why? What about a severely mentally retarded human? Why should this human go at the top of the list, above all the healthy dolphins and chimpanzees and other intelligent non-humans? What makes a totally dysfunctional human superior to a healthy functional chimpanzee or baboon?
Suppose the chimp can communicate at a primitive level and the mentally retarded human cannot communicate at all. Suppose the chimp can think and figure out solutions to simple problems and the retarded human cannot think at all. Why should such a human be considered superior to the chimp?
Does pure membership in the species make an individual superior, even though he has no superior traits? Why? How can the species be superior except by virtue of the superiority of individual members of that species?
If superiority is a quality which belongs only to "our kind", then why does the "kind" have to be the species kind rather than the race kind? In other words, instead of saying "our kind" is the human species, why not say "our kind" is the White Race, or any other race? "Our kind" could mean only Anglo-Saxons, or Orientals, or any other arbitrarily-chosen tribe.
No, if superiority is to mean something, it must be defined according to superior traits, and anything with those traits is superior. It cannot be defined as a race or a species or a tribe. Superiority is entitled to be recognized even if it comes from a group which is mostly inferior. Some members of the group may be inferior and others superior. It is the traits or characteristics which identify one individual as superior and another as inferior.
If you say no one is superior or inferior, then you must also say that no animal is superior or inferior, including no human animal, and that all animals are equal, from the simple amoeba to the complex mammal. And if they are all equal, then it is just as wrong to kill one as another.
If you claim no animal is superior or inferior, then you must concede that it is just as wrong to kill a cockroach or mosquito or fly as it is to kill a human. Only if you are willing to say this are you entitled to claim that there is no superiority of some animals to others.
It is obvious that it is the more inferior animals which may be killed without violating ethical principles, while the more superior animals have a certain entitlement, in degrees, to not be killed.
And some humans (comatose, mentally deranged), by any objective standard, are inferior to many of the higher animals, such as mammals and some of the intelligent birds.
Suppose a building is on fire, and inside the building there is a brain-dead human, perhaps in a comatose state and on life support, and there is a healthy baboon in a cage. A rescuer has enough time to rescue only one of the two. Which of these two victims should have priority? The correct answer is that the baboon should be rescued first. And only then, if there is still time, would it be appropriate to rescue the comatose human.
Even an inanimate object might have greater value than that comatose human. For example a valuable antique, a famous painting, etc. The valuable object would serve other humans who would benefit from its being saved. While no one benefits from saving the comatose human whose brain no longer functions and who feels no pleasure or pain.
We kill dangerous dogs, don't we? And pests. Well, by the same logic, there are humans, such as those who are institutionalized at public expense, who should be euthanized rather than kept alive at a high cost to taxpayers.
Who should make the decision that someone ought to be eliminated? Any group of reasonable persons could exercise this responsibility. What matters is that there be a fixed process for making such decisions, and that the process be done openly, publicly, with the information about it being available to everyone.
All the abuses of the past, such as those of Nazi Germany, and of certain criminal cases, were done secretly and at the whim of someone who was not a part of a legally-agreed process. If there is full disclosure and full identification of the decision-makers and full knowledge of the process, there would be no danger of abuse.
Society should stop wasting billions of dollars caring for individual humans who have become worthless. Or in some cases who were worthless from birth. When an infant is recognized to be severely diseased or handicapped, it should be terminated then, before the costs begin to add up.
And assisted suicide should be made legal.
Nothing in this would prevent private charities from undertaking to care for someone who would otherwise be judged as inferior and fit for termination. However, such charities should not receive any government subsidy, including tax exempt status. Taxpayers have no obligation to subsidize parasites.
Superstitious religious beliefs should not be allowed to overrule reason. Cost vs. benefit analysis should be used to make decisions involving the expenditure of public resources.
This needs to be said, against all the contrary human instincts. The rule of reason will lead to more total happiness and less total suffering in the world. When blind superstition and emotion take precedence over reason, it makes a greater number of humans worse off, causes more overall pain. We need to reject those notions of "love" which end up causing more total pain and suffering. A blind senseless knee-jerk "love" is not what the world needs.
Do you disagree with the above?
If so, your argument may be posted in this web page (click here), or post it in the SocialContract.com Message Board.