You're such a doop. What's the ratio? 5 Gibbons are worth one human life? 10 to 1? Because you said it yourself, a human life is worth more than that of any other creature on Earth. Or maybe all creatures are equal, and we should all forget how to tie our shoelaces and live in trees like the Na'vi. People who make arguments they can't or don't defend 'lose' my attention. "Monkeys matter" isn't an argument.
Seriously? You can only comprehend that kind of moral absolutism? So either a single human life is worth more than any number of any animal, or you should kill a human as readily as an ant and vice versa? God forbid someone actually engages with discussions or moral boundaries in anything close to a contextual sense, even if these views often work on a basis of relativism which you completely fail to account for.
It's cool Peg, I'm more than happy to debate this with him. Shuman is your memory so short that you think I can't flesh out and defend an argument? I know we've had some decent talks before, although it's been a while and we've both undergone username changes (weren't you Scarecrow Xavier or am I mistaken?) Let me be absolutely clear what it is I'm saying, as you're already trying to make baseless assumptions about what I think. The statement in question, made by Penn Jillette, was: So some things are worth pointing out. With due consideration for the context of the entire episode, this was not merely a parody of PETA hyperbole. They were putting their cards on the table in the animal medical testing issue, by positing that every individual human life is worth more than even an entire species, regardless of ecological context. They chose chimps specifically to cut out any ambiguities, as chimps are the closest relatives to humans. (Chimps are not monkeys... neither are gibbons for that matter). They took it beyond a mere headcount with the word "every", meaning complete extermination and extinction. They also chose "a street junkie with AIDS" as their human, which begins to address the ambiguities of what is meant by 'every individual human life'. So that is what I disagree with, and if you (or anyone else) want to debate me, that is what you will have to defend. Or, if you'd rather discuss something less hypothetical like animal testing (for example), I'm down with that too. But that doesn't give you license to strawman me or make random guesses about what I think from what I haven't said.
Animal species compete with each other and sometimes that results in the extinction of the prey species. The fact that humans don't kill other animals instinctively doesn't mean that it's any less morally or ethically meaningless as any animal species being wiped out by another. I care more about humanity than any other species, just as each lion only really cares about lions. What you're arguing, that preserving other animal species is important (not because they're useful to humans, but because they deserve respect) isn't a belief founded in logic. Next you'll be respecting trees and particularly interesting rocks. Maybe this tin-man just needs a heart, right straw man?
...with due consideration for the context of the episode, looking at it as a parody is well within the realm of possibility. Ockham'srazor would tell you this is the most likely explanation. All righty, just separating out your hypothesis on the subject. (I've noticed lately that if the original point isn't as clear as humanly possible then the main point tends to get lost) That is a pretty hefty assumption to be made. It excludes the fact that Penn and Teller are comedians and assumes they have it out for specifically for chimps. You then pick apart every specific part of their statement with a fine tooth comb suggesting motives that really just don't make sense for comedians to make. It's the reading far into a simple joke that is what we disagree with. I mean just take a step back from you own point of view and ask yourself, "what reason would they have to say what they said?"
That is entirely possible. If I could ask them, I would. But at this point, it's not about Penn & Teller, as they are not available for discussion. I asked if anyone wanted to defend the statement, as presented, regardless of whether or not it was a joke, and someone here is willing. And as I did say, if you would rather discuss the less hypothetical issues (ie: going beyond the P&T quote), great. I like to debate just for its own sake, and I don't debate to tear down a person, but an idea. The main point is that it seems someone is willing to defend it on this forum, (either that or he misconstrued my words, which is rather likely) so I'm attacking it. Truth be told, I was half-expecting, half-hoping it would occur to my opponent to amend the quote to his own position. Yeah they go well beyond comedy quite often. Have you seen many episodes of Bullshit? What you're arguing, that humans don't **** their own oxygen, isn't a belief founded in logic. Next you'll be respecting the symbiotic bacteria in your gut and particularly interesting data taken from mandrill populations about the evolution of social systems. See? you're already assuming things about my argument that I haven't even touched on yet. I could argue that nonhuman animals intrinsically deserve respect, but I don't even have to. You are saying that our little scenario is a representation of ecological competition, but there at least 2 good reasons why it is not. For one thing, there is no significant modern competition between humans and any other animal larger than an insect, definitely not with chimpanzees. The other reason is that ecological competition does not generally play out with species annihilating each other. There are lots of reasons why a species goes extinct, and mere out-competition is rare. The main reason out-competition or annihilation by predation does occur is by human-facilitated species invasion. Sometimes geological events will shuffle the balance and extinctions will occur because the competitive landscape is altered, but like I said, this is quite rare for being the cause of extinction. Most natural extinctions are the result of subtle shifts in the fitness landscape and are very slow events. It may take millions of years for a species to go extinct once the tide is turned against it. While out-competition may be cited, this is a far cry from annihilation. So appeal to ecology fails to reach the level of justifying humans annihilating a species, because it is not relevant.
Yes and the context in which they are speaking (or to be more accurate Penn is speaking) is that of sarcastic irony. That's the stick with the episodes. They pick controversial topics and sarcastically ridicule the people they're doing the episode about.
I'm not denying you your right to argue something apart from the episode, I'm just saying the far more likely excuse for what Penn said (or more likely, what the writers who are paid to come up with scripts for the episode said) instead of assuming Penn and Teller have some sort of anti-chimp agenda. So if you want to argue with shuman over the moral ambiguities of the value of life go for it.
Seeing as that's the core of your argument, that biodiversity is important, I was hoping you'd do that. That or cede. No, I'm saying that it's not immoral or unethical to force the extinction of another animal species.
...Well, let's not get crazy. As a species of higher consciousness we have realized that we are part of a larger ecosystem and if entire species are eliminated that has potential to affect us down the line. I've read and watched more than my fair share of biology professors, humanists, conversationalists giving; testimonials, discovery channel shows, school essays, etc to know that eliminating all of a species is not good for the planet and not good for humans in general. Extinction between other animals is actually a very, very rare occurrence and tons of models have been set up to show that extinction amongst predator/prey populations is one of the least likely events to happen. (If too many predators appear in an area the prey's numbers are greatly reduced leading to starvation amongst the predators thinning their numbers which allow the prey to multiply, cycle continues etc etc) Also, technically how "ethical" the taking of another specie's life is depends on how it was taken and the circumstances that prompted it. Pure survival and the animal is killed in a way that was very quick to reduce suffering, sure very ethical. Serial killers shooting squirrels and rabbits in their backyard for fun, not so ethical.
You said in your post if anyone wants to debate you they can so here's my proposition there is a flaw in your premise. The statement in question was "You want passion and truth, Teller and I would personally kill every chimp in the world with our bare hands to save one street junkie with aids." The first part is important because it is showing it's just there opinion which everyone is entitled to have an opinion. Opinions will cause controversy though because there not facts it's what an individual believes some people will agree some people wont which is fine just making sure this is clear because there not saying it's the right or wrong, just what they believe. The flaw in your premise is (Teller and I think that"every individual human life is worth more than even an entire species" That's what you think the meaning of what they said was which is wrong. That would be the end result of the hypothetical situation but it's not the intention/point. They said "Teller and I would personally kill every chimp in the world with our bare hands to save one street junkie with aids." The meaning behind that sentence is "If we are ever in a situation where we had to choose if we had to kill an amount of animals to save a life human no matter how many or no matter the type of animal we would always choose to save a human" and that's an opinion and like I said everyone is entitled to an opinion. If one feral fox was attacking a human and you had a gun would you shoot the fox? Or If one feral fox where needed and they where going to be killed for medical study's to save a humans life, Would you hand over a feral fox over? Would you kill a 20 chimps attacking/killing human? or If 20 chimps where needed and they where going to be killed for medical study's to save a humans life, Would you hand over 20 chimps over? Change the animal and the number and everyone has a different limit of animals they would kill to save a humans life Penn and Tellers limit is unlimited and if that's there opinion and everyone has a right to have an opinion Why are you so against there opinion? But first how many chimps would you kill to save a humans life? and why is your number right and there's wrong?
Why do you think that's the core of my argument? I can just as easily defend everything I've said with human interest arguments. Despite appearances to the contrary, we have not removed ourselves form the laws of ecology. Pac summed this up nicely. I'm not a consequentialist - I don't like headcounts. I can't just put a number of animals on a scale and tell you when they morally weigh more than a human. There is one word in the quote, "every", that I don't quite think you're taking the meaning of. They have gone beyond headcounts themselves and said they would impose extinction on a species.
You would kill an ant to save a human life(I'm hoping lol) so you would kill animals to save a human life so you do have a headcount somewhere on the scale even if you don't know it. It will never require it to get to "every", "Every" is used to imply there number is higher than they would ever plausibly apply. It is Penn and Tellers opinion and only there opinion there not saying killing animals is good or extinction is good there not saying it's the right opinion or the wrong opinion there not saying anyone else should have this opinion, I don't see why it's a bad thing if Penn and Teller ever have to kill animals to save someones life in there life they will.(I doubt you or I would kill a human to save animals during our life's either. So it could be just as true for us except they know they wouldn't) If they where a animal conversationalist or a animal hunter or a president or animal medicine tester or someone who would have situation where they would have choices to kill animals often that would be a bad opinion for them to have but for Penn and Teller it is a fine opinion to have, In my opinion.
OK, I see what you're saying, that "Every" could conceivably be taken as "without any particular numeric limit". They didn't actually use the word "extinction" themselves. Touche, bro. At this point though, I'm just going to echo what I said to Pac monster. Debating what P&T actually meant is not the most productive direction to take. They're not here to clarify, and guessing about their position is not going to get us very far. If I were to dispute an opinion expressed by Thom Hartmann or Rush Limbaugh, nobody would think anything about it. But the point would remain, that they are not around to discuss it with me, and all I can do is discuss it with people who carry similar opinions, who are actually here at this forum.
Fair enough discussing what someone thought or was meaning is very trivial, As long your not disrespecting them for that decent sentence anymore. Anyway isn't this way off topic lol, P.E.T.A is a troll company.
Are you claiming that there's some kind of objective, inherent morality on the issue (or any issue)? If so, would you consider it objectively immoral or unethical to kill another human, or number of, rather than any kind of animal?
a little more back on-topic... I think PETA has taken as a truism that animal rights is the natural next step after the civil rights movement based on previous progression of human rights. They've posited this themselves, but I think they believe it too literally, are confused by the fact that taking the same actions hasn't yielded the same results, and have gone neurotic from frustration of reality. They should be totally reevaluating their approach instead of pushing a flawed one to insane logical conclusions. Edited by merge: relevant: Scientific Thinking And Moral Philosophy - YouTube Edited by merge: ooh wow, relevant as well: Glenn Beck Is a Nut --- relevancy abounds Report: Harmful Chimpanzee Research Not Worth the Pain | Wired Science | Wired.com