Help me debate!!!
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:25 am
Recently, I've become friends with this guy in my class because of our common interest in philosophy. He is very opinionated and his main issue with me is that he believes it is unfair that I judge him for something I think is wrong based on "faulty logic".
He is very anti-utilitarian and I don't think his view will ever change. So I don't think to make any kind of utilitarian based argument, like the Singer philosophy, will get me anywhere. I don't know enough to be able to argue a utilitarian opinion as opposed to a deontological one. Even though both philosophical views have their flaws, I'd like to stick to deontology since its something he agrees with.
To refute my beliefs, he claims that animals should not be given rights or any kind of moral consideration. He says this is because they do not possess the capacity for moral agency and that to have rights, one must have the capacity to behave morally. He does not think that the capacity to feel pain is not sufficient to gain right. In his view, humans are granted rights for 4 reasons:
1. higher cognitive capacity
2. the ability to reach that capacity (children)
3. being human/a disability ( the knowledge of the fact that if it weren't based on the disability it would have formed these capacities)
4. the fact that they are of the same species.
He says he's not a speciesist, but in my understanding, he's a clear definition. If so, help me refute his speciesism, please!!! He says it's not his argument and he prefers to argue in terms of capacity and potential capacity. He agrees that a speciesist argument is not one that is valid.
I ask him why he thinks that humans without moral agency deserve rights and he doesn't have an argument to refute. But, this obviously isn't enough for him to change his point of view. I need something stronger to argue. He told me that if I presented him a coherent, concrete, deontological argument for animal rights, that he would consider it. So maybe that's where you guys can help me out. If there's already a thread like this, please show me. It would mean the world to me for a response. Thanks anyone who replies!!
He is very anti-utilitarian and I don't think his view will ever change. So I don't think to make any kind of utilitarian based argument, like the Singer philosophy, will get me anywhere. I don't know enough to be able to argue a utilitarian opinion as opposed to a deontological one. Even though both philosophical views have their flaws, I'd like to stick to deontology since its something he agrees with.
To refute my beliefs, he claims that animals should not be given rights or any kind of moral consideration. He says this is because they do not possess the capacity for moral agency and that to have rights, one must have the capacity to behave morally. He does not think that the capacity to feel pain is not sufficient to gain right. In his view, humans are granted rights for 4 reasons:
1. higher cognitive capacity
2. the ability to reach that capacity (children)
3. being human/a disability ( the knowledge of the fact that if it weren't based on the disability it would have formed these capacities)
4. the fact that they are of the same species.
He says he's not a speciesist, but in my understanding, he's a clear definition. If so, help me refute his speciesism, please!!! He says it's not his argument and he prefers to argue in terms of capacity and potential capacity. He agrees that a speciesist argument is not one that is valid.
I ask him why he thinks that humans without moral agency deserve rights and he doesn't have an argument to refute. But, this obviously isn't enough for him to change his point of view. I need something stronger to argue. He told me that if I presented him a coherent, concrete, deontological argument for animal rights, that he would consider it. So maybe that's where you guys can help me out. If there's already a thread like this, please show me. It would mean the world to me for a response. Thanks anyone who replies!!