ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:A rapist cannot have a stronger interest in raping someone than the victim has in not being raped.
That simply is not true at face value.
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:I don't consider some interests to be more important than others merely based upon how much pleasure they would bring.
Nor do I.
Sometimes people are interested in doing something that will bring them no pleasure at all, such as a worthy goal that will even cost them their lives. They won't be around to experience the pleasure, and yet they valued that action highly enough to do it in spite of great cost.
That's an interest.
Interests may also be guided by hedonistic pleasure. But that's only one aspect.
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:A rapist's interest is a matter of hedonistic pleasure;
It is, yes.
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:he can live an enjoyable life without raping, and his detriment if he doesn't get what he wants is not comparable to the detriment of the victim.
Not this particular rapist. He's really closed minded, and he has formulated such a psychology that he only enjoys raping, and he would rather die than not rape. Not raping would emotionally destroy him and cause him to commit suicide.
You mean, he could change his habits, and learn to enjoy something else instead?
If so:
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:but for the victim it results in physical injuries, and prolonged, severe psychological trauma (not to mention misery that this causes to friends and loved ones).
Or she, like the rapist, could change her habits and not be so closed minded, and just learn to enjoy the raping and not worry about it so much.
Seem reasonable? Of course not.
So how do you tell the rapist he needs to change his habits to make the world better, but not the victim?
Note: I'm not actually advocating this, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your system.
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:Of course not.
Why not?
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:I agree with you here. I wouldn't consider a human's interest in eating an animal to be more important than an animal's interest in continuing to live merely on how much pleasure the human gets.
Then by what metric would you evaluate it?
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:"...if it values its own life more than a human values eating the animal"
I don't see how this changes anything.
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:so a human cannot rationally say that he/she values eating an animal more than the animal values its life, if the human has suitable alternatives.
Now you're getting at it a little bit, but there's another problem -- you said the human can not
rationally say it.
Not all values are rational. Indeed, a very large majority of values are irrational ones.
Do you discount irrational values?
And what does that mean?
How do you draw a line between rational and irrational values? (This is very important, spend some time pondering this if you can, and second guess and argue with yourself)
A few questions to help you challenge yourself:
Is a mother's love for an infant rational?
Is the desire for genes to be passed on to the next generation rational?
Is the desire to
live even rational?
YoImmaEatDatBanana wrote:
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:Now if a human is starving to death and only has access to an animal to eat (an unlikely hypothetical scenario), then it would be more rational to say that the human values eating the animal more than the animal values its own life.
Exactly because the human's desire to live would be greater than the animal's desire to live.
No, this has not necessarily been established.
I might not be able to reply for a few days, so please take some time to think about the above.