Firstly: people generally seem to think "more intelligence is better"; they generally consider "you're so smart" to be a compliment, but "you're so stupid" to be an insult; they would generally prefer their children to have more IQ, rather than less. But, secondly, the motte-and-bailey here is tremendous: I ask why one should assume that…
Firstly: people generally seem to think "more intelligence is better"; they generally consider "you're so smart" to be a compliment, but "you're so stupid" to be an insult; they would generally prefer their children to have more IQ, rather than less. But, secondly, the motte-and-bailey here is tremendous: I ask why one should assume that human intellect isn't relevant to rights; people respond that human intellect isn't relevant to rights, because animal intellect is relevant to rights; I ask why the latter precludes the former; and they say that I'm the one trying to convince them -- when I know why I believe what I believe, and I'm just asking why they seem to think that I should believe what they do! I guess I should've known better than to look for intelligent arguments in a conversation where I ask others why they don't think intelligence matters...
I just posted that the majority of people see a categorical difference between humans and animals, a difference not of degree but of kind. At that point the intelligence of the animal is irrelevant--what matters is that you are discussing a cow or a pig and not a human being and the relative intelligence of the two is meaningless.
If you want to construct a spectrum of animal intelligence where a healthy cow would score higher than a vegetative human being, be my guest. But it's pretty clear where society and the law come down.
Firstly: people generally seem to think "more intelligence is better"; they generally consider "you're so smart" to be a compliment, but "you're so stupid" to be an insult; they would generally prefer their children to have more IQ, rather than less. But, secondly, the motte-and-bailey here is tremendous: I ask why one should assume that human intellect isn't relevant to rights; people respond that human intellect isn't relevant to rights, because animal intellect is relevant to rights; I ask why the latter precludes the former; and they say that I'm the one trying to convince them -- when I know why I believe what I believe, and I'm just asking why they seem to think that I should believe what they do! I guess I should've known better than to look for intelligent arguments in a conversation where I ask others why they don't think intelligence matters...
I just posted that the majority of people see a categorical difference between humans and animals, a difference not of degree but of kind. At that point the intelligence of the animal is irrelevant--what matters is that you are discussing a cow or a pig and not a human being and the relative intelligence of the two is meaningless.
If you want to construct a spectrum of animal intelligence where a healthy cow would score higher than a vegetative human being, be my guest. But it's pretty clear where society and the law come down.