what is needed...

for a being to hold a 'moral status'?

in the december issue of seed magazine; there is an article by ed yong entitled 'of primates and personhood'. where it explains that countries are taking steps to protect great apes from experimentation. that the organization the great ape project (gap) is at the forefront of this movement. demanding a set of moral and legal rights for primates.

peter singer (philosopher and head of gap) states 'it's a historic breakthrough in reducing the barrier between humans and non-human animals.' he continues...'all creatures that can fell pain should have a basic moral status.'

there are already many countries that ban ape research altogether, and the u.s. looks like it is next. spain has ape rights already on the books, and switzerland has what is called 'dignity laws'.

now, philosophical; i could go on for a very long time (in fact i think i will elsewhere, and for other reasons), but i just want to make a few points:

first, where are we to draw the line or 'barrier' that singer speaks of? will it be the outcome that my cat will have the same 'moral status' that i? what about the countless deer that are hit on our highways on a daily basis? if the moral status is equal, then once you hit a deer; then it becomes the same as hitting a person. a simple hit and run. criminal charges then have the ability to be brought up against you.

second, right vs. morality. a right is something given to you by your government; as we speak of legal rights. now these are privileges, and not absolute guarantees. meaning they are able to be taken away from you. just like how the government takes away your 'right' to vote if you are a convicted felon. not like morality. as we question...'is this the right thing to do?' what do we mean? many answers here. many long answers here. but my quick basic question becomes...are you willing to allow morality to be a privilege? something to be taken away, or changed? 'what is the right thing to do?' now we have the ability to argue about the situational aspects of this, but at the heart or center or it is the concept of 'morality'.

third, does the feeling of 'pain' constitute morality? we, as humans, believe that we have the ability to perceive pain in other creatures. an an anthropomorphism, from my point of view. but; what does it mean to 'feel pain'? if we measure pain by a creatures reaction to something 'unpleasant' then all things feel pain. my cat as it gets its insulin shot to the amoeba that 'moves' away from a needle, or something else 'unpleasant'. how about the opposite of pain -pleasure. how do we use this as a measuring device? the tomato plant (or any plant for that matter, i'm just thinking about tomatoes right now) that moves towards the sun for nutrients. what if i were to move that plant away from the sun; am i then committing an immoral action? how are we to 'measure' these things?

these points may seem silly, but they illustrate my point in this short 'rant', if you will. if the points seem silly, it is only because my larger point that morality being extented to 'non-human' existents is silly, and holds a great many fallacies.

here's a quick question that i want you to ask yourself, if you disagree with me...where would we as humans be without experimentation on animals? let me re-phrase that...medical experimentation. because i'm not arguing for 'hey, lets cut it open, and see what happens' ideas. this is not a 'experimentation' free for all, but with a purpose, and a point. not pointlessness.

amitabha...