addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [humanism-174] Are humans special?

From: An Unknown K.
Sent on: Monday, June 22, 2009 10:47 PM
A fully grown non human ape has more importance than some fetus. We have this ridiculous notion that we are too hot to trot (retro I know) and we fail to realize that our differences from the rest of the animal kingdom is not kind but degree. We are a cool species because we're the only part of nature (as far we know) that is self-aware. Star dust that thinks. Awesome! That happens to pollute and poison all that it touches. That has radically altered and marred the face of mother Earth and yet still expect her to provide. Star dust that exploits and murders one another. Peter SInger is a brilliant thinker who lays out just how immoral some of our so-called morals are, self- satisfied smug little apes who have the bloody audacity to believe that this universe has a plan for them and it involves them! Give me a break. That is not to say we should all become nihilists or anything...
------Original Message------
From: Ginger
Sender: CFINO
ReplyTo: CFINO
Subject: [humanism-174] Are humans special?
Sent: Jun 22,[masked]:57 PM

Richard Dawkins has been putting on his Youtube channel interviews with different intellectuals about the importance/implicati­ons of Darwin.

I am currently listening to the interview with Peter Singer.


The video is about 45 minutes but very fascinating.

Singer is highly controversial and speaks with Dawkins about how generally we feel that humans deserve special consideration solely because they are genetically human, and that Darwin's demonstration of how evolution is a continuum merits that we re-think this idea of the sanctity of human life.

Another philosopher whom I admit I have not read but have learned about has also written about Darwinism and it's implications for the concept of "human dignity"

Should a being merit special consideration *regardless of what other traits it may have* solely on account of being genetically human? Why or why not? Does a human embryo or a person with no recoverable 
brain function deserve more moral consideration than a chimpanzee? What about a cat or a dog?

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Ginger ([address removed]) from The Cleveland Freethinkers.
To learn more about Ginger, visit his/her member profile: http://www.meetup...­
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here: http://www.meetup...­
Meetup Support: [address removed]
632 Broadway, New York, NY 10012 USA

Sent on the Now Network��� from my Sprint�� BlackBerry

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy